Online chat rooms have become a great source of communication. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. THese people can be from all over the world, or even your next-door neightbor. Chat rooms are very effective resources because they have even allowed me to converse with other members of my Biology class to discuss the lectures and labs. The chat room can provide a learning environment outside of the classroom. A lot of classes around campus have the chat rooms set up privately for only the students registered in that class. The chat room is a good resouce to use inside and outside of the classroom.
In Los Angeles (L.A.) the use of dogs in the police force has been rejected, and the use of weapons is prefered. During the Watts riots, which took place in L.A., officers employed guns as means of protection; some looters and perpetrators were killed (Knutson and Revering 64). Clearly dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, these cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds and resuces involving human lives performed by police canines. It has been concluded by the 6th Circuit Court that, "since deaths are rare in police dog cases, deploying dogs cannot be condemned as deadly forces" (Savage para. 12).
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Cohesion
“I will be writing a policy paper about which certain types of [GMO] products should be @[labeled], and the basis for the requirements of labeling. I will focus on the strictness of the labeling policy, which @[products] are @[covered] in the policy, which ingredients are covered, when the labeling requirements are triggered. I will also discuss whether restaurants should be required to follow this procedure, what the labels should say, and how the companies will verify whether the products have GMOs or not. I will support this by using documents that prove that GMOs should be labeled. @[Moreover], I will talk about why all ingredients should be covered, @[with the exception of] preservatives and additives. I will use statistics and data from current policies in other countries and find reasons as to why products have to have a certain percentage of GMOs to be considered genetically modified. I will find data to support why restaurants should be excluded from this, @[as well as] why products should say "Does contain GMOs" @[as opposed to] "May contain GMOs". @[For example], many products that claimed to be free of GMOs were actually found to have GMOs, I will discuss a third party company will have to test the GMOs. I will need to find more sources, but I will definitely be able to use the articles I already have.”
Most of my sentences use parallelism so if i marked it, my post would be flooded with @[...].
This exercise made me realize that I need to use more cohesive devices in my writings.
Most of my sentences use parallelism so if i marked it, my post would be flooded with @[...].
This exercise made me realize that I need to use more cohesive devices in my writings.
"Tiger Tear Down"
When I first heard about the cancellation of the Clemson's Big Thursday, and whether we should cancel the Tiger Burn, it didn't even dawn on me that the reason it was cancelled was because of the tragedy in North Carolina. I believe that the "Tiger Tear Down" is a much better alternative, because the Tiger Burn could be a direct hit for friends of the girl from Clemson that died in the fire. I think it's sad that my first year here, I have to miss out on this USC tradition, but I completely understand why it was canceled, and I think it was a good decision. I am not exactly a USC fan by 'heritage', but I guess you could say they are my #2 team, so it's not like I'm missing out on a huge part of Gamecock life.
The motivation for this change in policy is to respect the 7 that lost their lives in a fire. I don't know that society will necessarily benefit from it, but many USC and Clemson students would be worse off emotionally if the Tiger Burn was still scheduled.
The motivation for this change in policy is to respect the 7 that lost their lives in a fire. I don't know that society will necessarily benefit from it, but many USC and Clemson students would be worse off emotionally if the Tiger Burn was still scheduled.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Chapter 7 Question 5
Patrick Moore and Jamie Lincoln Kitman discuss unconventional ways to help the environment. Both authors support protecting the environment, but their arguments on the effectiveness of hybrid vehicles and nuclear energy may come as a surprise to those who are less familiar with the subject.
In Jamie Lincoln Kitman's essay, "Life in the Green Lane", he describes the ineffectiveness of certain hybrid cars when it comes to protecting the environment. Rather than being an advocate of hybrid cars, as most would expect, Kitman discusses the reasons that hybrid cars aren't as beneficial as most believe. He begins by comparing hybrid cars to fat-free desserts. If you eat enough of these desserts, you can still gain weight. This is the same as buying a hybrid car that claims to save gas, but instead, can only save gas under certain conditions. Hybrid cars are designed to save gas when driving at moderate speeds through town, but when one is driven on the highway, the battery powered cell is not enough to make the car accelerate and stay at a higher speed. At this point, the car switches to gas power, thus using the same amount of gas as a conventional car. Kitman also writes that a conventional car is always better than a hybrid SUV, because the "21 miles per gallon is not particularly brilliant", as compared to the gas mileage of a conventional car. The government has begun making tax incentives and special parking spots for these very same cars that waste more gas than a regular car, while people that save gas by using regular cars have to walk a further distance and pay more money for actually saving more gas. Because Kitman is a bureau cheif for a car magazine, he knows more about cars than the average person (I assume); the article may come as a shock to those that don't know the truth about hybrid cars.
In Patrick Moore's article, "Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case", he writes about the advantages of nuclear energy. He admits that he was once against this idea, but now is an advocate. His pro-environmental stance makes it surprising that he supports this idea, but my high school chemistry teacher preached about the wonders of nuclear energy, so it really doesn't come as a shock to me. He begins by giving a history of nuclear energy, including fatal accidents (and he stresses that they were accidents) and stats about CO2 emissions from electrical energy plants. He talks about solar and wind energy, two useful energy sources, but that they are so unpredictable that they can't be relied on. There are five problems with nuclear energy that he is able to counter-argue. Nuclear energy may be expensive now, but with technological advances, it will be more affordable in the future. Nuclear energy has had an unsafe history, but only because the reactor was lacking safety measures that are now instilled in the plants now. Some believe that nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years, but within 40 years, the used fuel will have less than 1/1000th of the original radioactivity. Nuclear reactors are believed to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but chemical plants, natural gas plants, and political targets are far more vulnerable. Finally, nuclear fuel can be diverted to nuclear weapons, but Moore argues that many things that are potentially harmful (such as car bombs, made of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars), but have not been banned. Because Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, an organization devoted to the protection of the environment, his article is persuasive, because his has the environment's best interest.
In Jamie Lincoln Kitman's essay, "Life in the Green Lane", he describes the ineffectiveness of certain hybrid cars when it comes to protecting the environment. Rather than being an advocate of hybrid cars, as most would expect, Kitman discusses the reasons that hybrid cars aren't as beneficial as most believe. He begins by comparing hybrid cars to fat-free desserts. If you eat enough of these desserts, you can still gain weight. This is the same as buying a hybrid car that claims to save gas, but instead, can only save gas under certain conditions. Hybrid cars are designed to save gas when driving at moderate speeds through town, but when one is driven on the highway, the battery powered cell is not enough to make the car accelerate and stay at a higher speed. At this point, the car switches to gas power, thus using the same amount of gas as a conventional car. Kitman also writes that a conventional car is always better than a hybrid SUV, because the "21 miles per gallon is not particularly brilliant", as compared to the gas mileage of a conventional car. The government has begun making tax incentives and special parking spots for these very same cars that waste more gas than a regular car, while people that save gas by using regular cars have to walk a further distance and pay more money for actually saving more gas. Because Kitman is a bureau cheif for a car magazine, he knows more about cars than the average person (I assume); the article may come as a shock to those that don't know the truth about hybrid cars.
In Patrick Moore's article, "Going Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case", he writes about the advantages of nuclear energy. He admits that he was once against this idea, but now is an advocate. His pro-environmental stance makes it surprising that he supports this idea, but my high school chemistry teacher preached about the wonders of nuclear energy, so it really doesn't come as a shock to me. He begins by giving a history of nuclear energy, including fatal accidents (and he stresses that they were accidents) and stats about CO2 emissions from electrical energy plants. He talks about solar and wind energy, two useful energy sources, but that they are so unpredictable that they can't be relied on. There are five problems with nuclear energy that he is able to counter-argue. Nuclear energy may be expensive now, but with technological advances, it will be more affordable in the future. Nuclear energy has had an unsafe history, but only because the reactor was lacking safety measures that are now instilled in the plants now. Some believe that nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years, but within 40 years, the used fuel will have less than 1/1000th of the original radioactivity. Nuclear reactors are believed to be vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but chemical plants, natural gas plants, and political targets are far more vulnerable. Finally, nuclear fuel can be diverted to nuclear weapons, but Moore argues that many things that are potentially harmful (such as car bombs, made of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars), but have not been banned. Because Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace, an organization devoted to the protection of the environment, his article is persuasive, because his has the environment's best interest.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Topic Proposal
**I am changing my topic proposal. I will now be writing a policy paper about which certain types of GMO products should be labeled, and the basis for the requirements of labeling. I will focus on the strictness of the labeling policy, which products are covered in the policy, which ingredients are covered, when the labeling requirements are triggered. I will also discuss whether restaurants should be required to follow this procedure, what the labels should say, and how the companies will verify whether the products have GMOs or not. I will support this by using documents that prove that GMOs should be labeled. I will talk about why all ingredients should be covered, with the exception of preservatives and additives. I will use statistics and datas from current policies in other countries and find reasons as to why products have to have a certain percentage of GMOs to be considered genetically modified. I will find data to support why restaurants should be excluded from this, why products should say "Does contain GMOs" as opposed to "May contain GMOs". Also, because many products that claimed to be free of GMOs were actually found to have GMOs, I will discuss a third party company will have to test the GMOs.
I will need to find more sources, but I will definitely be able to use the articles I already have.
I will need to find more sources, but I will definitely be able to use the articles I already have.
Chapter 7 Question 4
In Kluger and Lindzen's essays, both authors talking about the growing concern with global warming. The authors, though talking about the same subject, approach the matter in opposing ways.
In Jeffery Kluger's essay, "Be Worried, Be Very Worried", he talks about the growing threat of global warning. He discusses the main cause for global warming, that CO2 emissions have caused upsets in the Earth's natural order. He stresses that the population is not aware of how extreme the crisis is, and explains the cycles that get increasingly worse each time they come around. He discusses each matter, including land, water, plants, and animals. Carbon that is contained in soil in high altitude regions is released when the soil is warmed. This creates a continuous loop, because the carbon that is released makes the climate warmer, thawing more land and releasing more carbon. Total human carbon output is 7 tons per year; the carbon in the soil amounts to 200 to 800 gigatons. This imbalance of carbon dioxide is causing the icecaps to melt, making land extremely dry and causing droughts, causing trees to ascend mountains and animals to become extinct.
In Richard Lindzen's essay, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists Into Science", he claims that global warming is made out to be more of a catastrophe than it really is. He talks about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and about how it should contribute to increasing climate, but that the public does understand that this should not be alarming or make a single person responsible for the minute amount of temperature change. The warming balances out the temperature differences between the poles and the equator, so Lindzen claims that natural disasters, such as hurricanes that depend on differences in temperature, should occur less.
Lindzen's essay was hard for me to follow, and Kluger pulled in a little bit of emotional persuasion when he stated that the polar bear will be extinct sometime around 2060. Although Lindzen has valid points about the temperature differences, I believe that Kluger's essay is more persuasive, because he provide more information about global warming and its effects, and what can be done to stop it.
In Jeffery Kluger's essay, "Be Worried, Be Very Worried", he talks about the growing threat of global warning. He discusses the main cause for global warming, that CO2 emissions have caused upsets in the Earth's natural order. He stresses that the population is not aware of how extreme the crisis is, and explains the cycles that get increasingly worse each time they come around. He discusses each matter, including land, water, plants, and animals. Carbon that is contained in soil in high altitude regions is released when the soil is warmed. This creates a continuous loop, because the carbon that is released makes the climate warmer, thawing more land and releasing more carbon. Total human carbon output is 7 tons per year; the carbon in the soil amounts to 200 to 800 gigatons. This imbalance of carbon dioxide is causing the icecaps to melt, making land extremely dry and causing droughts, causing trees to ascend mountains and animals to become extinct.
In Richard Lindzen's essay, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists Into Science", he claims that global warming is made out to be more of a catastrophe than it really is. He talks about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and about how it should contribute to increasing climate, but that the public does understand that this should not be alarming or make a single person responsible for the minute amount of temperature change. The warming balances out the temperature differences between the poles and the equator, so Lindzen claims that natural disasters, such as hurricanes that depend on differences in temperature, should occur less.
Lindzen's essay was hard for me to follow, and Kluger pulled in a little bit of emotional persuasion when he stated that the polar bear will be extinct sometime around 2060. Although Lindzen has valid points about the temperature differences, I believe that Kluger's essay is more persuasive, because he provide more information about global warming and its effects, and what can be done to stop it.
Point IV
- Products that contain genetically modified organisms should be labeled for any potential health risks associated with consumption of the product.
- Products that contain genetically modified organisms should be labeled only so consumers know what is in their food, and also to allow the US to continue trading with countries that have these labeling regulations.
- Products that contain genetically modified organisms should not be labeled, because there are minimal health risks, and it would be too expensive for the farmers and food companies to keep the GM crops separated from the organic crops.
The third perspective is the dominant, based on the current state of things. This is because there are no studies that have proven health risks associated with GM crops. Also, in transportation and distribution, it is easy for GM crops to be mixed with organic crops, and to keep them separated, or to test them for genetic modification would cost too much money and be a hassle.
The second perpective should be dominant, because consumers have the right to know what is in their food. Also, if Europe refuses to trade with the US because of their labeling regulations, the US could lose more money than it would for separation and testing.
This perspective can be enforced so that people will know whether their food is genetically modified or organic. By labeling the food, people will be able to decide if they want the food. If they see the label on the food, it may spark interest to see exactly what it means when their food is genetically modified. They will be able to research it, and therefore determine if they would rather have genetically modified food or organic food.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)