50 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2016
    1. President Obama's plan to restrict drilling in the Arctic has hit a nerve in Alaska.

      why they are mad

    2. "Our fiscal situation is that we’re in a $3.5 billion deficit this year.

      bill walker says one economy of alaska

    3. You know, over half the conservation land in America is in Alaska, so we have more set aside in Alaska than the entire rest of the country combined, and we’re trying to make a living here, we’re trying to live here, we’re trying to have an economy here, and we’re doing it environmentally responsibly.

      bill walker

    4. "I’m not going to allow geopolitics to be resolved on the backs of Alaskans.

      bill walker

    5. It’s an area that we certainly want to protect, we will protect, but my goodness, you know, the area we want to explore is equivalent to a quarter, a 25 cent piece, on a football field.

      bill walker

    6. All the arguments that I’m hearing now are identical to arguments I heard then, it just hasn't proved out to be the case.

      Bill walker

    1. President Obama’s proposal to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling drew criticism from both sides in the drilling debate.

      obama propose

    2. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar developed the offshore drilling plan after conducting four public meetings over the past year in Alaska, California, Louisiana and New Jersey. The Interior Department received more than 500,000 public comments on the issue. Mr. Salazar has said that he hoped to rebalance the nation’s oil and gas policy to find a middle ground between the “drill here drill now” advocacy of many oil industry advocates and the preservationist impulse to block oil exploration beneath virtually all public lands and waters. He has called the offshore drilling plan a new chapter in the nation’s search for a comprehensive energy policy that can open new areas to oil and gas development “in the right way and in the right places,” according to an aide.

      supporting person

    3. The eastern Gulf area is believed to contain as much as 3.5 billion barrels of oil and 17 trillion cubic feet of gas, the richest single tract that would be open to drilling under the Obama plan.


    4. Mr. Obama said several times during his presidential campaign that he supported expanded offshore drilling.

      obama ethos

    5. Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangered whales, off limits to oil rigs.

      obama says

    6. he said, “and that for the sake of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.”

      obama said

    7. Mr. Obama also tried to answer oil industry officials and Republicans in Congress who would claim that the president did not go far enough. “They’d deny the fact that with less than 2 percent of oil reserves, but more than 20 percent of world consumption, drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs,”


    8. Mr. Obama said in his remarks: “There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling, But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”

      obama said

    9. The environmentally sensitive Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska would be protected and no drilling would be allowed under the plan, officials said.


    1. For lower-income Alaskans and those living in high-cost rural areas, the dividend can be an important source of income.


    2. “that we need to do something and we need to do something major.” What that ends up being remains unclear.

      effect on the people

    3. The major debate at this point appears to be around using earnings from the Alaska Permanent Fund, what tax bills to pass, if any, and how far to push changes to oil taxes and credits.

      what will be done

    4. Bills to reinstitute a personal state income tax for the first time since 1980 and proposals from Mr. Walker to raise taxes on motor fuels and on various industries, including oil, fishing and mining.

      what they will have to do

    5. The governor has warned that legislators could face a special session if they do not come up with a fiscal plan before the regular session ends on April 17.
    6. Gunnar Knapp, an economics professor, has told lawmakers that Alaska is probably facing a recession and that the economy will take a hit no matter what they do.


    7. state political leaders are struggling to get on the same page, with legislators split on options like taxes, the depth of budget cuts and tinkering with the annual dividend most Alaskans receive for living here.
    8. The collapse in oil prices has left oil-reliant Alaska with a multibillion-dollar budget deficit and few palatable options for digging its way out.
    1. by misrepresenting to them that concussions did not present serious, life-altering risks," the suit filed Wednesday charges.

      It really all depends on if the contract that they have signed says that a diagnosed concussion does have serious long term effects on an individuals life. If it does then I would have to consider how the contract represents the awarness of a concussion. Did the contract say that there is "a chance a concussion can have long term effects", or "a concussion will have long term effects." This will play into logos and ethos for my paper. Pathos will play in the NFL's part with the benefits of the job fame, money, benefits, overall rate in concussions across sports world. Pathos towards the Players with the symptoms of PTSD and other longterm effects described by the people them selfs on what it is like to live with these disabilities on a day to day basses. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/19/more-retired-players-join-nfl-concussion-lawsuits.html

    2. The lawsuits claim the National Football League hid evidence linking concussions to permanent brain injuries and seek millions in compensation.

      This lawsuit is claiming that the NFL is trying to hide the fact that there was concussion's that were diagnosed, and the NFL hid the fact that you can have long term effects from returning to play with a concussion. I have noticed that the people that are suing are mainly former players that must have suffered a lot of concussions. To back the NFL the players are aware that this is part of their contract and do have the option to sit out of a game if a concussion is diagnosed. http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2012/01/19/more-retired-players-join-nfl-concussion-lawsuits.html

  2. Sep 2016
    1. Okay,incaseyoudidn’tcatchthat,listentothatlastpartonemoretime.JaystartedmakingupsomeconversationthathadwithAdnanabouthisgloves,aconversationJayneverevermentionsagainandhasnopoint

      Susan is obvious on how she is bias towards Adnan being not guilty. She constantly is pointing out that Jay lies in his story. She is good at pretending like she is not bias by giving statements with Adnan recorded voice being involved in the situation, but it all leads back her pointing the finger of guilt to Jay. With this being told by Susan it is really convincing that Jay's story has many more holes and things that do not exactly match up. When she brings up the Jay interview involving taping and Jays's pauses in the interview, she really sold me on the idea that Adnan was wrongfully tried. Susan really did successfully used pathos, ethos, logos. Using the logic of the common person, it is very clear that something was wrong in that interview.

    2. Buttherealquestionforalotofpeoplehasalwaysbeen:wereJayandAdnanfriends?

      This seems to be the author's claim of the purpose of the episode to describe what she is investigating. She seems to want to keep her ethos by not saying anything particularly bias to her opinion to far. This podcast is very similar to Koenig's and has many similarities with how she uses the evidence and how she presents it.



    1. Examples of “clues” abound from across the twelve episodes

      This writer is very well spoken and uses evidence in almost every claim that he or someone else has said. This has given the writer ethos and a great sense of credibility to the author. By stating facts the author is also building logos within this passage, things that were actually said. Then the author is allowed to give their own personal opinion to the evidence as long as it it logical to the reader, which this author does well at. This author seems to be from my understanding a Scholarly source from the how the information is presented.

    2. Serialas the Future of AudioDram

      I believe the author made his claim very easy to understand. He seemed to know that using his claim as his title was a advantage to attracting readers. I noticed that it is a title that really hooks you and makes you want to read it. Also Serial is now a well know name in the podcast audience, which is something people can recognize. With the title containing "I'm not a real detective" contains interest to a title that seems to have some drama to the passage.

    1. While we have yet to receive any definitive answer as to exactly what group hacked the DNC, the vast majority of experts believe that the attacks came from Russia or Russian-backed actors.

      Inquiry Question- Why would the news media say that Russia was responsible for the hacks if there is no definiyive answer?

      It seem to be that the media put the information out early almost on purpose to make a story, when all it seems to do is bring up mindless and pointless arguments. When the presidential debate talks about it, I thought it made the united states look weak and confused. It seems like the news does not have the best interest for the country at times. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/clinton-and-trump-fight-over-whether-putin-was-behind-dnc-hack-034310871.html

    1. And research on both people and animals suggests the reason is that a brain injury can disrupt circuits that normally dampen the response to a frightening event.

      Inquary question - Are the athletes that play football more likely to have PTSD? This study says that a concussion can lead to a higher risk in PTSD. If this is the case why has nobody in the NFL decided to state any of these facts. Not saying anything would sound like to me as something to look into about if the NFL has been trying to eliminate this from going viral. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/26/495074707/war-studies-suggest-a-concussion-leaves-the-brain-vulnerable-to-ptsd

    1. I confess to having reasonable doubt about whether Adnan killed Hae. I’m not talking about the courtroom kind, I’m talking about the normal person kind.

      Koenig seems to try to confess to her audience in a attempt to keep her reader ethos look on her. Maybe thinking that this episode was so focused on sympathy to Adnan that she needed to tell her audience that she is being bias and that she is letting Adnan look like a good person. She does back it up with other people confirming this belief, which allows her to say this.

    2. So, there he was. Mute through two trials, about five weeks total which isreally hard for anyone.

      Koenig seems to be attempting to develop pathos in her audience by describing how it feels for Adnan to be silent in the trial. To maybe develop a sense of sympathy to Adnan. To make people sympathetic to Adnan would bring the listeners more involved into the case to see it through.

    3. how could the cops have missed a detail like that

      Koenig uses a creates logos in when saying this. It's logic that if that phone booth was actually not there then it would be a very dumb mistake for the cops. This builds logos in Koenig by telling her audience that she is paying attention to the details and letting the audience know, so that the audience does not question her capabilities of evaluating the case. This makes the episode for the audience more enjoyable because they can just relax listen and not have to worry about errors.



    1. That’s my fear. That I’m going to get through all this and be like, “I don’t know.”

      I think Koenig uses pathos to describe the one thing she does not want to be the end result of study of the case. I kinda understand why she does this. To show her listeners that she is even more determined to resolve this case, that it fears her not to. That she is willing to go even deeper into this story to make sure that this does not become the reality. Thats how most people are that puts their own time and energy to something, they are going to see it though entail they are satisfied. At the same time this kinda points out that she is emotionally involved in the case. Either if that is a good thing or bad thing, I don't know?

    2. She is not a small talker or a beater around of bushes. You discuss whatever it is you came to discuss full-on, looking it squarely in the face. She has no time for bullshit.

      Koenig seems to me to be trying to keep her listeners interested. She could have used another way of explaining Enright's personality and lifestyle but she chooses to use bad language. It also develops Enright's ethos, to give her credibility and to show that she actually has a view on this story worth listening to that could even change the listeners perspective. I lost a little from Koenig's good pathos that I had of her, it seems like she puts this anger into the story that was not even needed.



    1. I am still disturbed by the thought of Koenig stomping around communities that she clearly does not understand, digging up small, generally inconsequential details about the people inside of them, and subjecting it all to that inimitable “This American Life” process of tirelessly, and sometimes gleefully, expressing her neuroses over what she has found.

      Keonig did lose some some of her Ethos in serial by making judgments about topics and making comments about peoples ethnicity that really had little meaning and only took away some of her credibility. I did not notice most of the things that gave so much conflict to Keonig's story. Even when she talked about race in the court room, i was only thinking that the purpose of Koenig bringing it up was only to give some of the possible outcome of the scenario. I felt that she was just laying out all the different things to let her listeners decide if they were actually right or not, putting herself at risk purposely. She should have used a different approach to her ideas, that would have been a much less of a controversy to her podcast. Kang defiantly destroyed much of the Ethos I previously had for Keonig. Pointing out many things that unfortunately skipped my mind when listening an annotating serial. This is for sure going to change the paper that is due.

    2. “Her diary, by the way — well I’m not exactly sure what I expected her diary to be like but — it’s such a teenage girls diary.”

      I do think that Koenig is being completely unfair to the characters Hae and Adnan. She used her knowledge to describe something in a matter to get her listeners to understand. I don't think she did a great job but i do think people got the wrong message out of this quote. I believe she was describing typical things that teenagers go through and struggle with at that particular age. Not singling out her race and the expectations that she may or may not have yet. To describe it i would say that, Koenig was playing with fire but did not get burnt. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01657/fire-fest-2_1657096i.jpg

    1. Influential restaurant analyst Howard Penney warned on Tuesday that Chipotle's (CMG) stock could crumble by another 50% as the burrito chain struggles to rebound from the damage inflicted by outbreaks of E. coli, norovirus and salmonella.

      My Bias in this article made me laugh! From the start when i read this article i was surprised to learn that my believes about why the market in Chipotle is crashing was true. I have only eat at Chipotle one time and thats because when people talk about Chipotle its always jokes about the after effect of eating it. so when i read the title i said to myself "well if they stopped giving people food poisoning they wouldn't have this problem". Then i was right. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/06/investing/chipotle-stock-crash/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

    1. The impact of the controversy on his jersey sales is clear. Mike Rosenberg of the Seattle Times pointed out Kaepernick's jersey ranked 20th in sales on San Francisco's website before the situation made national news. It's now skyrocketed to the top spot in just a few weeks.

      Looking at this article the main story is the quarterback for the 49ers protests to not stand during the flag for the purpose he says to support the black lives matter organization. At the same time it seems like the news is using the new jersey sales the quarterback is gaining because of this protest. To implicate that he could be doing this for personal gain or that his cause is actually being more supported. My bias allowed me to believe that he could be doing this for personal gain, but when thinking about the cause it seems that it couldn't be true. It seems the news is trying to take away from the purpose that Kaepernick first expressed. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2661838-colin-kaepernick-has-49ers-top-selling-jersey-since-national-anthem-protest

    1. But traffic safety experts said there was no single culprit for the surge in motor vehicle deaths. Smartphone use, cheaper gas prices, climate change and a strong economy all play a role.

      In this article i seemed to be bias toward the story. In recent studies there is a increase in the number of car accidents. The article is blaming this sodden increase on the use of technology while a driver is driving a car. I did not first agree with this. I am someone who has a clean driving recored and takes pride in not texting and driving. Which i would define as sending a text message to another person while driving. There are some other factors that i believe caused the sodden increase, Labor Day, gas prices, population of drivers increase. When i started to think about my bias on the subject i realized something. What i did not think about was the way in witch technology has developed and the new ways people are using technology while driving. Drivers are using their phones for many more things now, GPS directions and entertainment like music, which are all distractions. Throwing away my bias allowed me to realize the actual purpose of the article, which is to make cars a less cause of distraction and to keep people safe.http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/31/technology/traffic-deaths-roads/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_tech_pool

    1. Do you ever wonder whether Fido really understands what you're saying?

      This story seemed fun to write about because of how easy it got my attention. The story seems to start off with a common question people ask them selfs. Of course dog owners think about if their dog actually know what they are saying. My guess is that this story is so popular because there are so many dog owners in the US, most or everyone that owns a dog talks to their dog. This story seems to be common sense, of course dogs know what we are saying. Dogs have brains that work and express emotion which is clear to anyone who has ever pet a dog. Its how people train their dogs with the use of their angry or happy voices. So why did they feel the need to put this story on CNN? I have to imagine that the soul purpose was to get more views and have a better rating for the show. They use a lot of science within this article to make it scientific and look good, but in the end result after i read this news article it was like opening a present that i already knew what what was inside. I did like reading this article still, so CNN know that dogs are Americans attention weakness. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/health/dogs-words-mri-study/index.html

    1. I’m saying I think the cell phone was in Leakin Park

      Sarah brings Dana into the story for the purpose I think to keep her credibility. Having two sides of a persons thoughts on this suspicion brings out some of the bias that she might think is within her own belief of the story. Dana disagrees with her and says she thinks it is true, which is a possibility and having Dana there to give that situation a second look is important to remaining on the boarder of not being bias.

    2. We checked with Verizon. Neither could track down records from that far back.

      Sarah does not seem to me to be bias when looking at this evidence because even when she makes a personal comment on wether she beleves the story or not Sarah then tests and researches the evidence. She does point out that the situation is a little suspicious, then still does not say that it is now the situation of a false prosecution. It seems that Sarah goes out of her way to time the cars direction to the Best Buy, to make sure she doesn't sound bias. Another example is with the Mr. S suspicion, she does on to say after all the weird things that Mr S shows. Sarah then gives a what if of innocence from a lack of information for which is the end result. I believe this makes her not bias, but she does it on purpose during the episode to draw the attention of her listeners and then leave them on a bias note to give the decision of the story to her audience. http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4d/4ddb349345a6377085d8eb6a2ccd9d2d165d31fa2637ed58dc1c4c2bcb12ee46.jpg

    3. Sarah does not seem to me to be bias when looking at this evidence because even when she makes a personal comment on wether she beleves the story or not Sarah then tests and researches the evidence. She does point out that the situation is a little suspicious, then still does not say that it is now the situation of a false prosecution. It seems that Sarah goes out of her way to time the cars direction to the Best Buy, to make sure she doesn't sound bias. Another example is with the Mr. S suspicion, she does on to say after all the weird things that Mr S shows. Sarah then gives a what if of innocence from a lack of information for which is the end result. I believe this makes her not bias, but she does it on purpose during the episode to draw the attention of her listeners and then leave them on a bias note to give the decision of the story to her audience. http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/4d/4ddb349345a6377085d8eb6a2ccd9d2d165d31fa2637ed58dc1c4c2bcb12ee46.jpg

  3. Aug 2016
    1. Mr. S says he just wondered upon the body. This man is a streaker and from the sound of it an alcoholic, which brings up the effects of alcohol of large doses to the body and mind. This make's a large range of cognitive choices that can be influenced. Has his memory of possibly being involved change from being intoxicated? Sarah explains that there is something not right about his story, but the possibility that the man honestly does not have the memory to recall and only remembers where the location was that night could be a possibility.

    2. Sarah makes a statement saying that Adnan looks innocent because someone like him wouldn't go to Leakin park. In a different sanario I would agree that Adnan wouldn't go to this place. This is a murder thought and a murder would bring any kind of person to Leakin park to hide a murder. So to assume that would be to a far outlook of the best of someone and to not acknowledge that people are capable of anything. Maps were still around at that time. http://orig04.deviantart.net/f170/f/2012/228/0/b/leonardo_dicaprio_as_two_face_by_asvarney-d5bcgvp.jpg A picture of Leonardo Dicaprio 2 faced, to show how someone could have two sides.

    3. Sarah talks about the body and how it was found in the woods. It was hidden but not hidden well. The man just so happens to find the body but still hair and a foot were sticking out of the ground. I guess what really stands out to me is that Adnan was a smart kid with a lot to lose. I would imagine if someone like Adnan would do such a thing the action wouldn't be so reckless. If he did plan to kill her he must have knew that he would have been one of the first suspects and be forced to take an extra precaution in his act. This doesn't seem to be a planned murder. If this is the case and someone wanted to set up Adnan, they could have done everything on purpose to set Adnan up.