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.

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.

Garrett Welch gwelch2