Hillary is using logos here by giving the audience numbers which means she has a plan and is credible. Although her claims might not even be true it definitely appeals well the audience. Aside from that I think this claim is absurd. Clinton and Bernie sanders have talked multiple times about taxing the 1%. This is in reference to those who are in the 1% of annual income. I do not at all believe this is solution because the 1% is already taxed at much higher rates than the rest of the general population and also because you can't expect most of the tax money to come from the rich. This is socialism at its finest and could cause serious damage to the market. She also says that she wont, "add a penny to the debt" which I think is a ridiculous claim for anyone to make. The last president to not have debt was Bill Clinton and that was, debatably, because of the economy he inherited.

Trump is using pathos by referencing his endorsements again.

This entire section of the debate was very childish on both sides. Although most of us have accepted thats how these things are in an election between Clinton and Trump, it still is painful to watch. The debates 4 years ago between Obama and Romney were the exact opposite and it makes me wish we could go back to that election. Anyway, it is a typical game of name calling here and it does not appear theres really any rhetorical strategy at work besides maybe pathos. They are trying to make themselves look like the stronger and better candidate.

Clinton uses pathos like this more times than anyone can count. She very frequently relates her argument back to the people and someone that she has met. It is a very smart strategy in arguments because it stirs up emotion in the viewers. It is a lot easier to make tough decisions when you don't have to see the effects of them and Clinton used that as a tool in these debates. I believe that Trump did a poor job of doing the same when he could have very easily. Clinton has effected and will effect a number of people just the same as Trump. Trump could have used her policies and plans against her just as much as she did. That is one of the things that I believe he did a very poor job of in the debates.

This is a prime example of ethos during the debate. Trump references his endorsements form organizations multiple times and this is just one example. He references them to try and establish his credibility. If well known organizations and companies are endorsing him then it will make a lot of people think that they should also and I have to say that it does sway me a little when I hear about his endorsements. He talks about his endorsement from the NRA very much and for me that his a huge thing.

I believe that trump is trying to use pathos here to stir up emotion in the audience. This is not hard to identify and not surprising at all because this is the rhetorical strategy used the most in the debates, sadly. Trump Here is talking about the topic of abortion and trying to put it in a perspective that will make the audience think about the fetus and not so much about the mother or the family. Trump very much emphasizes on how unethical it is. Although trump is not necessarily right about how late a woman can have an abortion, he is not necessarily wrong. Woman can have abortions in their third trimester and there is little restriction on it (http://americanpregnancy.org/unplanned-pregnancy/abortion-procedures/).

The author of this article is not listed and is most likely a group of people. It was published by the EuroStemCell, an independent organization signed to, "help European citizens make sense of stem cells." Before I say anything Europe, especially the United Kingdom, has far less regulation of embryonic stem cell research compared to the United States. In the UK, as long as the research furthers human knowledge of how to treat disease and help people, then it is legal. That being said, there is a possibility that their research could be of higher value due to the little restrictions in their country compared to ours where it is very difficult to do research. I think that EuroStemCell is a fairly reliable source, however, they do not cite any of their sources which does hurt their credibility. This article talks about a lot of interesting and important things but the major part of the article I would like to talk about is the clinical uses of each type of stem cell. ESCs are just starting clinical trial after over 15 years of research on them and they are still in the very early stages of trials. They are thought to have the least amount of complications in clinical usage compared to iSPCs and umbilical cord iSPCs. What does this mean for iSPCs? It could mean that much more research needs to be done with them in order to be prepared for clinical trial. It is still unclear the exact clinical uses that they could have but among the ones listed in this article are patient specific treatments to decrease or eliminate the possibility of rejection. Overall, I think the article does a very nice job of outlining the progress made in stem cell research, especially in each field individually. It's important to remember, as I noted earlier, this source is not completely credible so it may not be completely accurate. EuroStemCell is obviously a stakeholder on the issue but we cannot assume their stance on the issue of embryonic research. The article does a fairly nice job of establishing ethos and making them as credible as they can be, however, they could easily make this article a more reliable source by adding citations or references. Questions I would have for this article would be where they obtained their information and what, exactly, they do as an organization and they fit into all of this.

"Types of Stem Cells and Their Current Uses." EuroStemCell. EuroStemCell, 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Outside Sources Used: "About Us | Europe's Stem Cell Hub | EuroStemCell." About Us | Europe's Stem Cell Hub | EuroStemCell. EuroStemCell, n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Dhar, Deepali, and John Hsi-en Ho. "Stem Cell Research Policies around the World." The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. YJBM, Sept. 2009. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

This article was written by Gene Tarne of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She focuses this article on the clinical uses and potential of iPSCs and their possible therapeutic uses in regenerative medicine. The scientific communities hope is that they will be able to treat diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinson's and also treat spinal cord injuries. The iPSCs are obtained through the blood in the umbilical cord. She explains that these cells have potential to treat so many diseases and with much less complications than ESCs. For one, iPSCs do not have the ethical dilemmas that ESCs do. ESCs obviously have many ethical problems that have been debated for years. Tarne talks a little bit about this and the arguments presented in front of congress by stakeholders such as Michael J Fox. This, was of course, before the discovery of iPSCs so the opinions and arguments have changed greatly since then. Nevertheless, the ethical problems with ESCs are a "significant barrier" and iPSCs do not have this problem. In addition, these iPSCs are held to very high standards and regulations. The iPSCs that Tarne talks about are cells designed purely for clinical use and not for lab use. The part I have highlighted clearly states that they are held to a standard of the U.S. Food and Drug Agency that forces them to meet safety and quality requirements. Research in both ESCs and iPSCs is ongoing and because of the lack of knowledge and understanding of them, they have not been put to the test very much in regenerative medicine and other clinical treatments. It is very important that clinical cells be held to high standards and also thoroughly researched before they are used for clinical use because of the possible outcomes that I underlined in AB 3. Overall, Tarne does a good job of remaining objective. She is a clear stakeholder in this debate because she works for Charlotte Lozier Institute and their goal is, "is to promote deeper public understanding of the value of human life, motherhood, and fatherhood, and to identify policies and practices that will protect life and serve both women’s health and family well-being." So Tarne clearly is against ESC research, however, it is not particularly clear in the article which means she remained objective for the most part. She mostly uses ethos to persuade her audience in the article. She does this by making the article understandable for the general public and also by her organization. I think most readers would assume The Charlotte Lozier Intitute is a credible source. Also, this article is very appealing because it was released almost a few months ago. All the other sources I have found are at least a couple years old, so it is refreshing to find a recent article that is up to date.

Tarne, Gene. "IPSCs: A New Gold Standard in Regenerative Medicine?" Charlotte Lozier Institute. Charlotte Lozier Institute, 28 July 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Outside Sources: "About Us." Charlotte Lozier Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

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 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.

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.

I would like to note the fact that they hardly referenced any actual findings from studies and instead just referenced studies occurring right now. I would like to hear a lot more about the findings the research of embryonic and fetal cells has produced. Also these studies could also be done with somatic stem cells. I do like some of the points they bring up but I wholeheartedly believe that this writer is pretty ignorant on the issue, just like the author of the conservative article, and does not understand the possible uses of somatic stem cells.

I am very confused by these stats and what their significance is. There is much more limited fetal tissue stem cells and I would think that would be the reason for the difference in numbers.

If this is actually true then I completely agree with their argument. However, it is very unlikely that the last few claims Cretella made are factually based. Embryonic stem cell research has not yielded many results but that could be because of the lack of research done with them so far. Adult or somatic stem cells have proven to be very helpful in scientific research and could be equally as useful as embryonic cells but we do not know this for sure. Although I do like the accusations Cretella is making, I have to remain objective and question her credibility. I am against embryonic stem cell research for a number of reasons and one of the biggest is that there are plenty of other alternatives to it. Somatic stem cell research is something we need to look into a lot more and I love that this article not only objects to embryonic stem cell research but it also provides, possibly, a better alternative.

Colin Miller seems like a fairly reliable source and has presented a great argument. Throughout this podcast he asked a lot of questions that other people didn't think of. Dr. Hlavaty is a great resource for Miller to use and really helps him establish his credibility. Dr. Hlavaty is a professional who knows exactly what she is talking about and does a great job supporting Miller's claims. In this passage, Miller has asked her about livor mortis. According to Dr. Hlavaty, "Livor mortis refers to the red to purple discoloration of the skin, uh, that you see on bodies after death." Miller asked her if the states claim of what was done with the body is consistent with the livor mortis at the crime scene and that is when she replies absolutely not. Now the intended audience for the podcast is clearly serial listeners and Miller does a lot to appeal to that and win them over, however, I think that this is undeniable evidence. Dr. Hlavaty is a professional who knows what she is talking about and is clearly indicating that something is wrong here. So I think that this passage does an outstanding job of proving Miller's claims.

This is definitely a scholarly article. One of the real indicators is the citations. Not only does it have a bibliography but it also has in text citations. At the beginning of this paper I did not really know if it was scholarly or not because I did not see any citations and also, I was starting to sense a little bias. Once I cam across this piece, I knew that it was a scholarly article because of the in text citation and I realized she doesn't have as much of a bias as I thought. The sentences leading up to this made claims that I thought were opinion based, however, the author cites her sources of where this information comes form and who actually said it. This is a good example of the author using logos in her argument. There is not too many facts that the author can present to us but what she can do is present evidence like this and use as many citations and references as possible. So, overall, I don't think there is very much bias in this article. I think she did a very good job of presenting her argument without bias and using logos.

What is the basis for this diagnosis? It seems there is no real set symptoms of CFS and certainly no treatments for it. I'm curious what makes this disease different form narcolepsy and other diseases. It's clear that CFS is a problem and is affecting so many people but my point is that there could be so many more people that have it and have not been diagnosed. Raising awareness and research is key at this point. The studies done recently have opened so many doors for research. We need to continue to fund all of this and continue to search for the cause of CFS.

What other kind of help is being provided for these children and families? We have had over 4 months to prepare for these babies to be born and I would like to know how ready the doctors and pediatricians are for these babies that have unknown health problems. We do not know much about the Zika virus. It could have so many different effects and issues that we don't know about. So what have doctors and pediatricians done over the last 4 months to prepare for this?

Koenig uses a lot of rhetorical strategies throughout this episode to create some doubt in the audience. I think that this is where I see it the most. At the start of this episode she uses a lot of logos and pathos, especially in this interview. She chose Summer and Laura to interview because they give Koenig credibility. In a previous episode Koenig did a whole investigation on this phone booth and if it really did exist. Now the fact that these sources come forward and tell her that there was no phone booth, it really makes the listeners trust Koenig and what she's doing. We don't really know how important this phone booth is because there might be evidence that we are still missing. The fact that Laura thought it was insignificant and that the police never investigated it, makes me wonder if we are missing out on some other evidence. We just have to trust Koenig and hope that she has given us all the important evidence. If Koenig hasnt decieved us in any way then this is very strong evidence and it would mess up the entire timeline of the state. And in this case, Koenig did a very good job using Logos.

I am having a hard time understanding why Lisa and the jury were so surprised that Adnan wouldn't testify. I completely understand why Adnan would not testify. Dierdre Enright stated in episode 7 that it is not surprising that Adnan can't answer a lot of the questions of where he was and what he was doing because to him it wasn't a significant day. If Adnan did murder Hae then you would think he would have his story totally straight. The fact that he had not thought through the situation completely and couldn't answer some of Koenig's questions leads me to believe he had no reason to think them through. It seems to me that he knew he was innocent and thats why he did not think it all through. With this in mind, it doesn't surprise me that he did not take the stand. If he doesn't know a lot of the answers to the story then he should not take his chances on the stand if he knows he's innocent. Most of the time when a person is innocent, the evidence is stacked in their favor. Here is a really good article outlining why a defendant, typically, shouldn't take the stand: (http://breakdown.myajc.com/law-school-101-should-the-defendant-take-the-stand/)

I come from a very wealthy white suburban community where there is not a whole lot of cultural diversity. I could not tell you about Muslim culture or even Korean culture. In fact, I could not name a single muslim from my hometown. This makes me want to believe everything Sarah Koenig says. I very much want to believe that Koenig is not using any kind of bias to tell the story and not believe that she is uneducated or ignorant. Jay Caspian Kang is quick to point out the flaws in her story telling. Kang makes himself sound not only like an expert on the case but also an expert in cultures. I find it quite ridiculous that he is able to stereotype Koenig as a white reporter who doesn't know anything. Koenig obviously is not from inner city Baltimore but does that automatically invalidate entire telling of this case? I believe that from reporting for over 20 years and going to school in Chicago she has to have a little more experience than Kang is giving her credit for. Overall, I find it hard to read this article and believe it because I believe Kang did the same exact thing as Koenig. That being, he left out details and made us believe him completely without question even though Koenig knows a lot more than Kang tells us. Heres an article that talks about white stereotypes:(https://eng112stereotypes.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/stereotypes-of-the-white-culture/).

I have a very difficult time agreeing with this statement. Although I do have a bias towards USA, I believe any educated individual would have a hard time agreeing with this. If we are just looking at the talent in the rosters and not considering any team chemistry I understand why Chris Peters says this. Statistically speaking, Canada is far better than any team in this tournament. However, it is very ignorant to look at this tournament and say Canada will beat every team handedly and I will tell you why. For one, hockey is just as much a game of defense as it is offense. Although Canada is an outstanding team it seems to me that their forwards, ad team as a whole, are solely offensively minded. Players such as Logan Couture, Tyler Seguin, and Steven Stamkos don't play on both sides of the ice. Teams such as USA and Sweden are very well rounded and have players that are defensively minded as well as offensively. Also, team Canada has a lot of quick players, however, teams such as North America and Finland tend to be a lot quicker. Lastly, team Canada is not as physical as teams like USA and Russia and I believe it will hurt them a lot.

I find it very surprising that Nisha says her phone did not have an answering machine. This could be just because I come from a totally technology dependent generation where an answering machine is old news. However, I found an article about the history of the answering machine that says, "By the late 1980s, the devices had become ubiquitous." Based off of that article and my understanding of the technology in the 90's, I have a difficult time believing that Nisha's phone did not have one. This answering machine is so important to the case because if she did have one then Adnan's call to her could have just been a pocket dial that the machine picked up. You can find the article about the history of the answering machine here: (http://www.brucesallan.com/2012/09/21/evolution-technology-answering-machine/)

I understand what 'Cathy' is trying to say but she is completely unaware of the news that he just received. Adnan was high and got a call saying that the police were going to call him. In my opinion, that is a very valid explanation to his behavior. No normal teenager would be okay if they were high and found out the police were going to call them. So, in my opinion, Adnan's behavior is understandable and I would have to say I would act the same way.

Being a biology major I completely understand the, to be put lightly, the concerns of the protestors. There is no way to know what this pipeline will do to our environment. This pipeline could be a huge mistake and we will not know for a decade at least. It is difficult to just sit and watch them while they put in this pipeline that could have catastrophic effects on the environment and ecosystem.

I do understand why Colin Kaepernick sat down during the national anthem and I do understand that the black and colored community feel like they are being treated unfairly in this country. However, the problem that I have with Kaepernick's method of protest is that he did it at his job. He gets payed to play a game for a living and gets paid $19 million a year to do so. Every athlete loves fighting for a good cause and standing up for what they believe in. However, if Kaepernick chooses to protest causes he feels should be addressed then he should do so outside of work.

I am confused why this is such a big deal. The immigrants Trump is talking about are, in fact, in the United States illegally. I understand that most of the illegal immigrants have started lives here and possibly families, however, from a legal standpoint deportation is what we should do. Amnesty is not an option. I say this because we cannot keep forgiving any illegal immigrant that makes it onto American soil. We will never solve the problem if we do that. Also, from a legal standpoint, we cannot just ignore them. Deportation is our best option.

This reminds me very much of the movie Gone Girl. In the movie a man is accused of murdering his wife and his defending lawyer says not to worry because if they can't find a body or a location of the murder than he is okay. The most important things in a homicide case are a weapon, the location of the homicide, and a body. Not only does the states timeline not match the interviews of Jay and Adnan, but they do not even know for sure the location of where the murder happened. Heres a website that talks about all of the most important evidence in a homicide case: http://www.practicalhomicide.com/articles/HomCrimeSc.htm

Jay is clearly lying about something. Those calls do not match the towers pinged or the timeline and it puts his whole story into question. He must be trying to hide something. The rest of his story all matched up except for the calls in-between 12 and 6. This is very suspicious to me because the rest of his story was pretty on point with the cell phone records and the towers pinged. I am really starting to wonder what Jay is trying to hide and why bits of his story just don't make sense.

I am very surprised that they were able to follow the states timeline and leave the school and get to best buy in the same amount of time they claim adman did. Getting out of a a high school parking lot after school anywhere is not easy and if it were my high school It would take me at least 10-15 minutes.

In episode 4, Sarah Koenig focuses on the inconsistencies in Jay's story. She shines light on the differences in his story between each interview and it leaves us questioning why it keeps changing. These inconsistencies have created a lot of doubt in my mind and kept me wondering how much of Jay's story is true, if any. Bill Ritz tells Koenig that, “we were able to investigate and corroborate what he was saying.” This confuses me because very large details have been changing in the story. I do not know how Bill Ritz and the investigators got to that conclusion but from what I know right now I do not believe that Jay is innocent. I think that he is hiding something and it could be the key to this entire case. This case really reminds me of the documentary Making a Murderer. In the show the man is accused of murder and there is a substantial amount of reasonable doubt. During the investigation the mans nephew comes out and tells police that he helped and that Steve Avery, the main character, is guilty. However, there are many details that keep changing in his story and it leaves you wondering if any of it is actually true and if so, how much of it. It is a very interesting show and I recommend that everyone gives it a watch. You can watch it here (https://www.netflix.com/title/80000770)

Chris Houser - Clhouser1