Oh my goodness. This is so important! To have just read an article about the bias within the criminal justice system in Baltimore in particular. She alludes to that fact that there were some things that were happening within the municipal system that made so many people feel uncomfortable, and actually targeted.

I am absolutely speechless.

We Americans need to be empathetic to the fact that countries within Southwest Asia are experiencing what seems like more than they can handle for the most part. I appreciate that the author included these facts.

Once again the description is heart-wrenching. For parents to be unable to identify their children must be the absolute worst feeling in the world. It attests to the fact that their identity had not even had the chance to be developed yet. Also, the way he is including these facts in their entirety almost makes the audience even more upset at Iraq's health minister as she was the one who claimed responsibility in her resignation.

Though this is fact, it was important for the author to include this. It appeals to pathos because the imagery within the description is triggering. "Charred incubators" sends a dagger to the soul because the children were absolutely innocent and didn't get a chance at life. The way he described it was absolutely unbiased and fact as it should have been.

I am particularly curious as to why when something terrible happens, many leaders in place resign rather than provide a new solution. I would be more interested to read about why she resigned and whether she was fit for the job or just resigned on account of this horrific incident.

It is important to read news from around the world because it is so easy to be consumed by the new happening within the country that there is a lack of compassion and an abundance of ignorance (and misinformation) towards other countries. We are a world system and need to be actively apart of the system.

In this article, it is the most, THE MOST important to include resident testimony and emotion. It appeals to pathos as it should because this is a social justice mega-issue. Where a population feels invalidated, they need validation after being correct.

I am unsure as to why it took so long to have an investigation. Was there not enough probable cause? I think it is important that they opened an investigation because it puts so many frustrations for people of color in Baltimore to rest, but almost instills more fears as to what the system that was established to protect and serve is doing to purposely counter that.

This quite disheartening to have the expectation. For audiences that are not people of color, I would be interested to hear their reaction. For myself as a black woman, I feel that same as Ray Kelly with the expectation. For others, that may not be the same.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg is a pulitzer prize winning journalist for the New York Times, an award winning newspaper. Her focus is primarily on social justice and civil rights.

http://sites.allegheny.edu/news/2013/10/22/pulitzer-prize-winning-journalist-sheryl-gay-stolberg-to-speak-on-a-reporters-journey-through-washington/

Since this was an accident, I personally feel for the officer. I appreciate that the author included this in the article because it makes the officer involved human rather than a destructive careless monster. This also adds to the authors ethos and the audiences pathos.

This definitely attests to her caring personality. This article is appropriate for the people who are mourning and respecting Knowlton's legacy. This article was well written to address the facts but of course there will probably need to be more investigation so the family can get closure.

This shows compassion from the department to take care of the people there since this was an unfortunate accident. People were there because they wanted to be and that shows compassion from the community, so reciprocating that is important.

This gives them some defense. I like that he includes this fact. Without stating their successes, the article would focus on this particular mistake and be perceived as biased by readers.

They were "blank guns", but they were real guns which is another issue. When simulating, the use of real guns may not be necessary.

I understand that these people are human just like any other person who is doing a job and they are bound to make mistakes. However, there is a sense of carelessness in this part because a person could have checked for live ammo.

This quite ironic in a tragic way. Here, McLaughlin is appealing to pathos by including the reason she went and further on, having someone else speak on her behalf.

Elliot McLaughlin has been a reporter with CNN for over 10 years. CNN is a revered news outlet.

I don't agree with this argument completely. In this day and age of social media, I rarely connect with some of my closest friends when I am busy or just not in the mood. Not a substantial enough argument to me based off of personal experience but definitely something to think about.

Here is somewhat of an explanation of him not thinking significant things about the day. He admitted to being high and not in his sober state of mind. He didn't associate anything significant with the day because the day was not significant yet.

I appreciate that Koenig shares her thoughts as well. She is a journalist and gives a good amount of her opinion but does her best to keep it informative without bias. She expressed a thought that the audience may have and she is connecting with them--this is her appealing to pathos. However, the logic is somewhat sketchy to me. Though she feels like he would go throughout the day with a fine tooth comb after being accused and convicted, she advocated in the first episode that it was difficult for people to remember things that happened 6 weeks ago let alone 14 years. Seems kind of inconsistent in my opinion. If she feels this way, wouldn't this challenge to the entire case be in jeopardy with his lack of accurate or adequate memory? Wouldn't he incriminate himself? Shouldn't she be worried about that?

Reasonably is a keyword for me as the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Adnan is guilty. Right away, she is adding to her credibility because she is explicitly saying that she is going to give information. She isn't holding anything back and she recognizes that there IS possible evidence against him. (Because I haven't read further), if she decides to "debunk" this evidence, she will appeal to the audience that believes that Adnan is innocent, and appeal to the skeptical audience.

This part is particularly questionable because if he was as innocent as he is projecting, he would have gone through every detail of that day with certainty to ensure that there was no detail was missed, not just "probably there.

Her Sarah is alluding to the fact of his conviction as convincing and she is convinced.

To use actual evidence contributes to her credibility as an author and investigator.

As stated before, the prosecution attempted to challenge his "good" image because they are aware they sometimes teens lives away from their parents knowledge.

This is important. For the people who believe that he is innocent, this is part of their reasonable doubt that he would commit the crime. However, good reputations are often the easiest to break down and so they should be careful about stating how "good" he was.

Why after this amount of time is she going to reinvestigate this crime? She doesn't personally know him or have anything vested in it so far.

Before she even states her entire claim, she makes a point about how difficult it is to account for time in insignificant periods of someone's life. Further into the podcast, she uses her nephew as an example/as evidence for this supporting claim. She is using real life examples to establish some credibility and pathos for the audience because they can relate.

The Alibi give foresight to what some of this particular episode will be about.

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 West

I find it very interesting that Trump's economic ideas are so easily refuted for a couple of reasons. First, Trump is running for President of the United States. You would think that he would carefully think about what policies he proposes. Second, I find that when I speak with conservatives about policy issues, most of the time the conversation sways toward economics. Why would Trump try and deceive citizens that know better when it comes to economic policy, and more importantly, why is it working?

This is a very interesting article, especially considering the political climate we currently live in. Many Americans are upset right now and want change, but many of them are constantly focused on their own struggle and what politicians can do to help them. They often forget that there are other people in this country that are suffering simply because they were born a certain way. Not only do some Americans feel this way, but Donald Trump is capitalizing on that by spreading fear and hate. I would recommend this article to those people that feel that way.

I like this article because, although it is an Op-Ed, he makes points that benefit both sides. This is an interesting time in history because, as he pointed out, a majority of Americans don't trust either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, which is just made worse by the fact that the DNC leader was proven to have conspired against one of the candidates. Although the author is clearly a left-leaning person, he recognizes the many factors that are making this a contested election, despite that Donald Trump is disliked by so many.

As with the last article I annotated, this is also a NY Times Op-Ed which is almost always biased towards liberal thinking. This line is a perfect example of that bias. However, aside from the bias, this article does a really good job of illustrating how unusual the Republican National Convention was, and how different Donald Trump is going about this election than previous candidates have. Personally, I see many similarities between the rise of Donald Trump and the rise of other dictators throughout history. His speeches are filled with hate and retaliation, similar to those of Hitler in the 1930s. I have read other authors draw this comparison, and I would be interested to find out what other similarities the two share.

As a NY Times Opinion article, it focuses very heavily on the negative opinions that other Republicans have on Donald Trump (that is, after all, the point of the article). This being said, I find the author to be biased against Donald Trump, particularly in the diction that he uses. Overall, this article is successful in representing some of the many negative opinions that Republican leaders have of Trump. If I wanted to learn more about the divide in the Republican party, I would read up on the Republican National Convention.

I find this article to be a good representation of the political climate we live in today. I was attracted to this article because I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, who like many, is unhappy with the current choices for president. I found this article particularly interesting because although all of these people support Bernie Sanders, they boo him when he speaks about Hillary Clinton. The intended audience for this article is all liberal people, whether you support Hillary or Bernie, as it illustrates how divided the country is even within the same party. If I wanted to learn more about the division in the country I would follow coverage of the Democratic National Convention to get an idea of how members of the Democratic party feel currently.

This is a good example of Koenig using ethos to appeal to the audience. At the core, the morality of locking someone up for life that didn't commit a crime is emotionally disturbing, which was one of the original reasons that Koenig took up this case. The following passages really allow the reader to connect with Adnan and feel what it's like to be wrongly convicted of a murder. At this point in the podcast, I think that Koenig is beginning to become convinced that Adnan did not commit the crime.

This seems significant to me. The whole idea earlier in the podcast was that Koenig couldn't find anybody that remembered significant events from the day, because to most people it was just an average day. However, Summer clearly remembered this day because she was upset when Hae did not show up. She seems credible to me.

This is another big red flag in the case that has been brought up several times. However, I question how trustworthy Laura is in this case. The way she is speaking to Sarah makes it seem like she does not care very much and thinks the detail is a small detail. She was also stealing from the store, which further makes me question the integrity of her memory, because she was probably more worried about getting caught and being sneaky. However, I don't discount her testimony completely, the phone booth is still one of the larger mysteries of the case.

Once again Jay's testimony is put into question and Koenig seems even more skeptical of Jay. Her skepticism makes me question Jay even more. So Koenig is using pathos because she is using her influence and the audiences trusts her opinion.

Koenig keeps repeating the "It's not a small detail" because she knows how important it is to the case. Also, this fact would have completely changed the case and it makes Koenig question Jays testimony even more than she already does.

Again, Jay's story doesn't quite line up. At this point, many listeners are beginning to doubt the validity of Jay's story, and Jay's credibility is diminishing as Koenig finds more holes in the timeline.

This is suspicious to me. Why would Jay say that Adnan made a call in Arabic if he doesn't know Arabic? What makes Jay qualified to judge if Adnan was speaking in Arabic? Could this just be an assumption he made, or possibly made up during the investigation? Although much of Jay's story lines up, this part of the story makes it seem like Jay could have made up the story completely.

This is an interesting point that Koenig brings up. This is another example of Koenig jumping into Adnan's shoes and allowing the reader to see from his perspective. Not only is this essential in investigating the crime, but it is also a good example of Koenig using logos to appeal to the audience. The audience can better understand the crime and engage in the podcast at a deeper level when Koenig explores the logic behind Adnan's supposed actions.

Here, and earlier in the podcast when Koenig says that "either it's Jay or it's Adnan. But someone is lying", Koenig is establishing her primary claim in the podcast. Koenig's claim is that "they" (the Court) convicted Adnan of murder without enough evidence to prove that he actually did it. This sets up Koenig's objective in the podcast.

Here, Sarah Koenig is establishing one of the key points early in the podcast. The court sees Adnan's forgetfulness of the events as proof that he is guilty, while Koenig has more empathy for Adnan. We see here one of the reasons why Koenig is so interested in the case, as well as one of the biggest obstacles that Koenig faces in investigating the case in the rest of the podcast.

Again, Koenig is appealing to her audience by making her seem more relatable. It's more listener friendly if the person doing the investigating makes it easy for the listener to organize all the facts and events.

This is how Koenig tries to appeal to her audience; by telling the narrative throughout the podcast as a story and making it easy for a young audience to relate to the story and engage in the investigation.

The news source is providing negative feedback as well. It is true that there is period of uncertainty for the UK. However, it may not result with negative implications. The investors are still getting into agreements as pound plunge has resulted in reduced deal value.

This news channel is stating the facts and the predictions by economists. The pound has plunged and economists are anticipating a recession is known to all. However, there is no analysis done as what could be the impact on the investments and the revenues earned by the investors post Brexit.

Here comes the real picture. The investment has gone down due to uncertainty that prevails. The investors are also expecting a fall in the expected revenues. The liberal news channel has presented a clear picture in front of the reader.

The news source is making mention of all the deals that occurred after the U.K. referendum and how those deals became cheaper due to fall in the pound.

The readers are told exact situation with statistical evidence. The liberal news channel is not trying to hide information and putting forth the exact situation of the investments and deals happening after Brexit. The impact of Brexit cannot be ignored as the number of deals have fallen by 45% as compared to the last year.

FOX ends the article by saying the more exciting part of the mission won't be here for a while. This was most likely done to attempt to make the audience annoyed and angry that the probe has reached its destination and yet NASA isn't doing anything of huge importance with it for another month or so. Both articles achieve what they are attempting to do. CNN hypes the news and makes the mission sound incredibly important and worthy of the money and effort. FOX downplays the exact same news, making it sound unimportant at all, and not worthy of the money and effort. Both of these articles achieve their purpose, and it is up to the reader to decide which article fits their opinions more.

This piece of information was left out of CNN's article, which makes sense. By turning off the instrumentation, NASA is gaining no information. This would be argued as a waste. CNN is not trying to make this argument, so they left that piece of information out. FOX, however, nearly ends their incredibly short article with it. It leaves that feeling of waste of time and money in the audiences mind.

The audience of both articles appear to be the same. They are attempting to reach the general public about this mission. However, the reasoning are direct opposites. CNN is attempting to excite the audience. FOX is attempting to make the the news sound bland and unnecessary. FOX is writing in short snippets that sound very unenthusiastic.

The first thing that stands out is the author does not attempt to build the excitement of the mission like CNN did. Conservatives tend to believe in smaller government. It makes sense that they would not try to make NASA, a government organization, sound exciting and worthy of support.

My conservative news outlet was FOX news.

As mentioned above, liberals tend to support government a lot more than conservatives. Since CNN is a liberal media outlet, they are making NASA appear to be on the average citizen's side. The wording the author uses makes it sound as if NASA is doing this mission purely for the benefit of the public. Although I would agree that the images being posted are for the public, the mission itself is definitely for the science community.

CNN is using quotes from highly credential sources in order to lend more importance to the mission.

This article makes the discovery sound very exciting. They talk about the success of the mission and how those involved are very excited with what they are finding. Liberals tend to want bigger government. Since NASA is a government run group, it makes sense that they are going to paint NASA in as bright a light as they can, to get the audience excited over the news and to support NASA.

I used CNN for my liberal news source. I chose to focus on the most recent news from NASA, as it is what started my interest in the subject.

Now this movement is been dubbed the "green rush" because it is bring so many jobs back to these struggling Colorado towns. The marijuana industry has revived many parts of Colorado's economy.

The taxes helped to restart this town and revive it. It used to be a coal mining town but with the less people using coal the town fell apart.

Marijuana in Colorado is helping out by bringing in taxes. They helped bring back the small town of Trinidad.

Even though marijuana use by teens has decreased it is still too many youth using marijuana because it has a strong affect on youths brain function later in life.

There is a graph of Marihuana support over time and the graph shows that more people are supporting marijuana now. But Democrats support marijuana much more than Republicans.

The survey was done by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The survey seems very trustworthy because it was done through this department. But, some of the people surveyed could have lied about their marijuana use.

This is surprising due to the fact that Colorado has legal marijuana. I thought the amount of consumption would have increased because of the legalization.

The authors conclusion is very positive for marijuana and seems to predict a positive outcome with legalization. With the legalization more marijuana Will end up in the hands of minors but they do not predict an increase in youth consumption of marijuana. So Indian the author believes there'll be a positive outcome. If this is the worst-case scenario legalizing of marijuana would be a no-brainer.

The authors evidence seems unbiased a correct. The relationship between marijuana and alcohol seems to say that the more marijuana there is, the less drinking there will be. So, the author believes that if marijuana is legalized there will be health benefits because there is less consumption of alcohol.

The authors purpose is to look at the effects of recreational marijuana on public health. It in this paper they're looking at the worst possible scenarios that could happened with the legalization. This article is it important to measure the risk of the new laws. The stakeholders in this article are The sellers of legal marijuana. They hold stake in the worst case scenario because they put a lot of money into the business.

Anderson, D. Mark, and Daniel I. Rees. "The Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: How Likely Is the Worst-Case Scenario?" J. Pol. Anal. Manage. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33.1 (2013): 221-32. Wiley Online Library. Web. 10 July 2016.

This article is looking directly at how recreational marijuana could go badly.

Mayor Hancock made people rethink their opinion on legalized marijuana in the state of Colorado. He cast doubt on whether it was a good idea. But the police do not know if this attack was caused by drugs or mental health.

Denver Mayor Michael Hancock blamed marijuana for these assaults. He believes there needs to be more police on 16th St. mall to protect people.

Phillips, Noelle. "Denver Mayor Says Violence Won’t Be Tolerated on 16th Street Mall." The Denver Post 30 June 2016: n. pag. Print.

There has been an influx of people coming to Colorado and specifically Denver since the marijuana law has passed. Video these people do not have anywhere to stay and are staying on the streets. Since the legalization of marijuana there has been more assaults on the 16th St. mall.

The authors believe edibles need to be more regulated. This conclusion is well supported by their evidence of many hospital cases due to edible marijuana.

The authors discovered that many users feel they have benefited from legalized marijuana. But there are still a major health risks for these users, which the authors Believe should be communicated by doctors and healthcare officials. They feel this is especially best say for edible products. In the end, the authors believe there needs to be more research done to see if the benefits outweigh the risks of marijuana usage.

The authors purpose for writing in this journal is to educate the readers about the history of marijuana in the state of Colorado. They wanted to evaluate the positives and negatives of the increased availability of marijuana.

The authors are all medical doctors or PhD's. All of them work in Colorado for different health organizations. The authors have a stake in writing this article because they want what is best for the state that they live in.

Monte, Andrew A., Richard D. Zane, and Kennon J. Heard. "The Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado." Jama 313.3 (2015): 241. The JAMA Network. Web. 10 July 2016.

The Journal is being put out by the Journal of American Medical Association or JAMA. They have a stake in this controversial topic because they need to figure out what is medically best for the public.

Based on the data the authors suggest public health interventions. These interventions could covet it before of educational campaigns or even policy change. These changes would help mitigate negative outcomes.

The data and evidence should be trusted because all the authors are examining is the public health records relating to marijuana. These records are centered around hospitals and poison centers. The authors examined the number of marijuana related incidents before and after 2009. 2009 was the year the laws changed making medical marijuana legal.

In this section, the authors draw a correlation between alcohol and marijuana. In their research, the authors discover that alcohol related hospital discharges are five times as high as marijuana. Also, alcohol had 5.6 times higher emergency department visits that marijuana and there was a two times higher treatment for alcohol dependency then marijuana dependence. But, the authors do point out that way more people drink alcohol then concealed marijuana, so these data points may not be completely accurate based on the number of people consuming each substance.

Over the time frame that the study was taken, there was a significant increase in marijuana usage. Also, more people became accepting of marijuana. Other positives were there were less treatment entries and arrests during this time. But they were more marijuana related motor accidents and the public health outcomes were still unknown.

The authors purposes in writing this Journal is to better understand the effects of marijuana on the public and to figure out why the public has changed its stance on legalize marijuana. In the article they are looking for public health indicators, which show the effects of marijuana.

All of the authors writing this journal are college educated and many of them have Masters and even PhD's. Most of the authors live in the state of Colorado, so that they should have extensive knowledge of how marijuana has affected the state.

Davis, Jonathan M., Bruce Mendelson, Jay J. Berkes, Katie Suleta, Karen F. Corsi, and Robert E. Booth. "Public Health Effects of Medical Marijuana Legalization in Colorado." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50.3 (2016): 373-79. Science Direct. Web. 10 July 2016.

Based on the title the journal is going to analyze how marijuana affects the public. It is also specifically based on Colorado after the medical marijuana legalization. The journal is being published by the American Journal of preventative medicine. This journal should be trustworthy because it is put out by United States Government. But the journal could be biased based around the current laws of the federal government.

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.

Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Mireille Jacobson, and Ervant J. Maksabedian. "In the Weeds: A Baseline View of Cannabis Use among Legalizing States and Their Neighbours." Society for the Study of Addiction 111.6 (2016): 973-80. Wiley Online Library. Web. 10 July 2016.

The goal of the journal is to analyze how the legalization of cannabis has affected the state that legalized and the states surrounding that states. This is a controversial subject and it is highly debated.

Overall this journal is more for facts and does not say if they advise using marijuana. The authors want the reader to come up with their own opinion based on the evidence and data shown. Based on the article the legalization of medical marijuana does not have huge affect on weather or not people consume marijuana. Washington and Oregon had a larger population that used marijuana and Colorado had a larger population than New Mexico. It is unclear if the legalization of recreational marijuana will have affect on the number of people that use. If a study is done like this again they need to get the race, gender and age of the people to be less biased.

In the journal, the authors realize how biased their data is. This is based on the fact that the study was mostly females and almost none of the participants were below the age of 21.

Recreational marijuana is used significantly more than medical. This means medical did not change why people were consuming marijuana.

The data the authors collected is biased. When the study is 84% white and 60% of them are over 40 there is not an even distribution of subjects being tested. The race factor could be due to the fact that the states chosen are mostly white but this fact still makes the results slightly biased. The fact that the study did not have many younger adults will significantly affect the result because more young people use cannabis recreationally.

This journal is unlike any other in many ways. It has a larger sample size and it dives deeper into the over all nature of marijuana consumption. By using these methods the data and evidence collected should be much more accurate and much more trustworthy.

The authors are writing this journal because of the new trend in legislation and the overall changing in the populations acceptance of cannabis. With weed becoming more readably available, studies like these are going to become more and more common and necessary.

The SSA or the Society published the article for the Study of Addiction. This group has a stake in studying Marijuana because it is a highly debated topic if weed is addictive or not. So, these writers most likely have experience studying cannabis and its affects. The authors also have to be truthful because the journal is peer reviewed.

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.

This is how, Amazon has earned brand recognition. Now, Amazon has loyal customers, who will not go anywhere else and would purchase from Amazon regardless of attractive deals available or not. So, this is the time to encash the built reputation.

Amazon wants to become an integral part of daily routine of the customers. Hence, the company is changing tactics and strategies in order to be successful without compromising with the profit margin.

The competition is high and it coaxed all the companies to provide huge discounts in order to lure people. The customers were sharp and made purchases on the basis of discount percentage given.

This suggests over-confidence about winning the presidential elections. She has planned everything well in advance.

Hilary Clinton is too focused and her first 100 days plan clearly proves this. She has thought of all the issues and problems that need to be addressed with immediate attention.

The expectations of Mrs. Clinton are highlighted. However, the remark may not be taken in a good light by Mr. Obama and his office bearers. This could also be taken as comparison and putting down the other person.

The confidence and charisma of Mrs. Clinton is unparalleled. She is dynamic and wants to prove her mettle after becoming the president of the United States.

This is an agenda for the presidential campaign by Hilary Clinton. She is inclined to give more power to women in order to bring equity in the best possible form.

This is a serious concern. Some steps to curb and control terrorism may give rise to terrorism in future. Hence, all the steps should be chosen carefully.

This is in connection with 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda was held responsible then for terrorism and attacks in the United States.

This statement suggests ambiguity that even government personnel are facing due to terrorism. There is lack of information with the government. Transparency is the need of the hour along with accurate information.

This suggests how careful United States is. Even after severe attack, the focus of the country is to cause no harm to the civilians living nearby due to terrorism attacks and defense.

The America swimmers times this year are making me very excited for the Olympic swimming this summer. I think the US has a good chance to win lots of events this summer.

Michael Phelps has fascinated me ever since I saw him in 2000. Also, I was a swimmer in high school so I have no idea how he can go so fast. Also, it is incredible that he can sustain his swimming skills for all these years.

Donald Trump picking himself would be different than any other president, yet I could see Trump choosing himself. He loves himself and thinks he is the best person in the world.

I am fascinated with Trump and the entire presidential race this year. This article caught my eye because Trump's V.P. is going to be an interesting choice.

It is very cool to see that Earth is not the only planet in our solar system to have auroras. Also, Jupiter's auroras are beautiful. I loved learning how the auroras are created.

I am extremely interested with all things space. So an article about our solar system's largest planet got me very excited. I do not know much about Jupiter.

Taking a direct quote from the "Republican Hawk" himself, it could be argued that this article is incredibly credible. However, the only part of this article that seems to be credible is the quotes themselves, since they come from the person involved. The explanation and wording between quotes are more opinionated and have a mild agenda. If further research were to be found, it would be best to find opposing sides to the argument in order to balance out the current opinion. However, I do not believe this article on its own should be considered fully credible.

This quote shows that the writer is at least partially biased against Donald Trump. After all, Trump is in fact the republican nominee, no matter if you support him or not. Therefore, it would be logical that other republicans were supporting him.

This article deals with a future nomination for president. SInce this will effect the United States,as well as a the world, this is a very important topic to discuss, and one that will hvae continuing coverage during the months to come, in addition to the things that have come up so far. However, as with all politics, it is very hard to find truly credible coverage of such a topic, as this is obviously an opinion piece.

This is yet another credible article. Not only is it from a well known news outlet, but there are also direct quotes throughout from the heads of NASA's mission. This gives first person accounts, and shows that this article is legitimate.

This further shows that there will be further information on later dates, but we will most likely not have the entirety of it for two full years. In additon, there is a possibility that the mission will fail, and all possible information will not actually surface.

Since NASA is undergoing a mission to analyze Jupiter, it is very likely that there will be a way to find more information on this topic. Since it is a space mission, and my prior knowledge to these sorts of missions, it is not very likely that all of the information will come in soon. Instead, it will be given out on semi-regular updates throughout the weeks and months to come.

I believe we should teach ourselves to use it in every introduction we make like, "Hello my name is Karry Knight, I'm a student at CSU, and my pronouns are he/his/him and she/her/hers" If we make it a normal part of our routine people won' t freak out about asking people what pronouns they use.