I have an IDEA!!!

It is a little less than 10 hours before my conference with you, Mr. Shattuck, and I finally have an idea that I like for my essay! I am so jazzed about this fact that I feel like I can take on the world so this meme feels very appropriate and I feel like I should share:

Kitty Meme

Now, a break from all this seriousness!

This picture just covers so much for me....

1. It could remind me of what my cat does when I come home for weekends, because he does something quite similar and its just as adorable.
2. It could remind me of what I feel like Sleep says to me every time my alarm clock goes off, especially when I have homework to do.
3. Or it could quite possible remind me of what my roommate and I do every time we say something mean to each other in a joking manner, that accidentally gets taken serious.

Or it could be all three. In any case, this is funny and adorable. So there.

Questions to ask about your Research Paper

Who is your audience?
What criteria does your research paper need to meet?
What questions does a good research paper answer?

What is the issue?
What is the importance?
Can it be changed?
How do you change it?

Criteria-Audience, appeal to audience, good examples, credible sources, relevance/significance

Characteristics of Reliable and Unreliable Sources

Characteristics of a Reliable Source

• Known author with credentials 
• Has evidence/facts, that can be proven
• Well known (.gov, .edu, AP(Associated Press)
• For a journal to have reliability they must have a high readership

Characteristics of an Unreliable Source

• No author
• Unqualified/lacking credentials
• Opinion heavy

In Class Writing Exercise

The first time you questioned authority?

As a child my mother had me convinced that I was allergic to chocolate. I'm not sure exactly when I figured out that I wasn't, but somewhere along the way my story became "I'm only allergic to chocolate in large doses." Then as I got older I realized what my mom had done, by telling me I was allergic to chocolate, she put down a rule that I couldn't eat it. Now I don't question the fairness of the rule, because now as an adult I don't have much of a taste for sweets, but I do question her implementation of said rule. Though I have to wonder if I would do the same in her place, especially given our candy coated world, where every other commercial seems to be about chocolate or some other sugary snack.

Notecard Method

Do all your research and keep notecards as you go!

1. Bibliography cards

• Title, all other citation information
• Assign number to the card
• Write that number on all the following cards

2. Direct Quote cards

• Write a direct quote, with page number, and a DQ
• Write bibliography card number

3. Precis Note (Summary Card)

• Summarize a lengthy passage
• Write page numbers and SC
• Write bibliography card number

4. Personal Note Card

• Write down ideas, notes to yourself, notes about your sources, or about your paper
• Write a P on it

Appeals

Pathos-Emotions
Logos-Logic
Ethos-Character

Deduction and Induction

• Deduction- Ex. All people are mortal. (Major premise) Socrates is a person. (Minor premise) Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)
• Syllogism- If X, then Y.
• Inductive- Ex. Today, I left for work at eight o’clock and I arrived on time. Therefore, every day that I leave the house at eight o’clock, I will arrive to work on time
• Enthymematic Statements- Ex. Secondhand smoke can cause lung cancer. (Major premise) Because people are allowed to smoke in our favorite restaurants, secondhand smoke is present there. (Minor premise) Smoking should be banned from our favorite restaurants.
• Analogy- Comparison, the relationship between ideas, hypothetical= reality, extended simile.  

How to Write a Research Paper

Finding a topic:

• American or International meal consumption
• Food
• Horticulture
• GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms

3 Demands of a paper

1. Needs to examine a significant issue
2. Must address a knowledgeable reader and elevate that reader to the next plateau of knowledge
3. Must have a serious purpose and argue from a position

Identify your audience:

• Respond accordingly to your audience
• Meet the needs of your readers
• Invite your readers to the discussion

Peace

As we venture into our last three weeks of the semester I felt like I could use a more peaceful state of mind and nothing is more peaceful to me than Robert Frost.
Gotta love those AABB rhyme structures, so easy to understand.


Once by the Pacific by Robert Frost

The shattered water made a misty din.
Great waves looked over others coming in,
And thought of doing something to the shore
That water never did to land before.

The clouds were low and hairy in the skies,
Like locks blown forward in the gleam of eyes.
You could not tell, and yet it looked as if
The shore was lucky in being backed by cliff,
The cliff in being backed by continent;
It looked as if a night of dark intent
Was coming, and not only a night, an age.
Someone had better be prepared for rage.
There would be more than ocean-water broken
Before God's last 'Put out the Light' was spoken.

Essay 2

Polygamy has been practiced in our world throughout most of history. Our society today seems fascinated by the idea of polygamy. We have romanticized the idea through televisions shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives,” even though according to LegalMatch.com’s Managing editor Ken LaMance, “All 50 U.S. states…have made polygamy illegal.” In Texas, according to the Texas Penal Code, committing bigamy, being married to more than one person, is a second or first degree felony, depending on the age of said partners. If one is under the age of 16 it is a first degree felony. The punishment for a first degree felony in Texas, according to the Penal Code, is “imprisonment…for life or for any term of no more than 99 years or less than 5 years.” The polygamy related TV programs vaguely made references to the illegality of their actions, but little seemed to be done about it. The reason behind this might be that according to LegalMatch.com “Many [polygamists] simply go through the religious rites of marriage without seeking legal recognition for their unions, to avoid prosecution for bigamy.”


The measure of the justness of this law is rather difficult. On the one hand, you might have consenting adults, who for their own reasons want to be involved in a polygamist relationship, and if that is what makes them happy is it not contradictory of the constitution to impede their “pursuit of happiness”? However there is a darker side to this argument, especially taking into account religious groups like the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who have on many documented occasions forced underage girls into plural marriages. The law has to be this severe to protect against the abuses that often accompany polygamy; therefore the law is just.


The constitutionality of banning polygamy hasn’t been called into question in many years. According to BillOfRightsInstitute.org, in 1878 a man named George Reynolds was convicted of bigamy in the Utah territory. Reynolds didn’t argue that he had broken the law, but Reynold’s argued that the law violated his first amendment rights given that he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which required multiple marriages or he risked eternal damnation. The case was taken to the United States Supreme Court where they ruled, in Reynolds Vs. United States, that laws banning polygamy were constitutional, because religious beliefs do not excuse one from following the law. According to the BillOfRightsInstitute.org, “in 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially rejected polygamy.” The rejection of polygamy led to the creation of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who still practice polygamy.


In application, as mentioned before, the law isn’t put into effect very much, since there are ways around these laws by not legally marrying someone. In the case of Kody Brown, the man with 4 wives featured on the TLC show “Sister Wives”, whose polygamy was brought out into the open, on national TV, bigamy charges may not be possible, because he is only legally married to his first wife. The other three marriages are simply “spiritual unions.” It can be argued that since they have all been together for so long, the other marriages are legal, through common law marriages. According to the Huffington Post, the Utah attorney general’s office has commented that “it has been [their] office’s position not to pursue cases of bigamy between consenting adults.”


This law is as practical now as when it was created. Polygamy is still in existence; therefore the law will continue to be relevant and practical until such a time when polygamy no longer exists. However the irrelevance or impracticality of this law does seem to be unlikely, given the population is still practicing polygamy.


In conclusion, a law banning polygamy, such as the Texas law cited, is nothing but just, constitutional, fair, and practical; everything a law should be. This harsh law, though hard to enforce, is a necessary measure to ensure that the seriousness of polygamy is not mistaken.

Rough Draft: Essay 2

Polygamy has been practiced in our world throughout most of history. Our society today seems fascinated by the idea of polygamy. We have romanticized the idea through televisions shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives” even though according to LegalMatch.com’s Managing editor Ken LaMance, “All 50 U.S. states…have made polygamy illegal.” In Texas, according to the Texas Penal Code, committing bigamy, being married to more than one person that is, is a second or first degree felony, depending on the age of said partners, if one is under the age of 16 it is a first degree felony. The punishment for a first degree felony in Texas, according to the Penal Code, is “imprisonment…for life or for any term of no more than 99 years or less than 5 years.” The polygamy related TV programs vaguely made references to the illegality of their actions, but little seemed to be done about it. The reason behind this might be that according to LegalMatch.com “Many [polygamists] simply go through the religious rites of marriage without seeking legal recognition for their unions, to avoid prosecution for bigamy.”


The measure of the justness of this law is rather difficult. On the one hand, you might have consenting adults, who for their own reasons want to be involved in a polygamist relationship, and if that is what makes them happy is it not contradictory of the constitution to impede their “pursuit of happiness”? However there is a darker side to this argument, especially taking into account religious groups like the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, who have on many documented occasions, forced underage girls into plural marriages. The law has to be this severe to protect those cases where someone is being hurt by polygamy; therefore in my opinion the law is just.


The constitutionality of banning polygamy hasn’t been called into question in many years. According to BillOfRightsInstitute.org, in 1878 a man named George Reynolds was convicted of bigamy in the Utah territory. Reynolds didn’t argue that he had broken the law, but Reynold’s argued that the law violated his first amendment rights, because he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and further argued that his religion required multiple marriages or he risked eternal damnation. This case was taken to the United States Supreme Court where they ruled, in Reynolds Vs. United States, that laws banning polygamy were constitutional, because religious beliefs do not excuse one from following the law. “In 1890, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints officially rejected polygamy” according to the BillOfRightsInstitute.org, which inevitably lead to the smaller group of Fundamentalist LDS members, who still in many cases practice polygamy.


In application, as mentioned before, it isn’t put into effect very much, since there are ways around these laws by not legally marrying someone. Even in the case of Kody Brown, the man with 4 wives featured on the TLC show “Sister Wives”, he literally brought his polygamy out into the open, literally on national TV. However bigamy charges may not be possible, because he is only legally married to his first wife, while the other marriages are simply “spiritual unions.” Though it can be argued that since they have all been together for so long, the other marriages are legal, through common law marriages. According to the Huffington Post, the Utah attorney general’s office has commented that “it has been [their] office’s position not to pursue cases of bigamy between consenting adults.”


This law is as practical now as when it was created. Polygamy is still in existence; therefore the law will continue to be relevant and practical until such a time when polygamy no longer exists. However this does seem to be unlikely, given the populations still practicing polygamy.


In conclusion, a law banning polygamy, such as the Texas law I cited, is nothing but just, constitutional, fair, and practical, everything a law should be. This harsh law, though hard to enforce is a necessary measure to ensure that the seriousness of the act is not mistaken.

Essay 1 Rewrite

San Angelo, once known as the oasis of dry west Texas is now quickly becoming nothing more than a patch of dry dirt with a few buildings sitting on it. San Angelo has little more than a year’s supply of water left and is currently in Stage 3 drought, the most severe stage the region has ever declared. Stage 3 means that no watering of lawns is permitted, nor is the use of water to fill swimming pools. Recent rains in the area seem to promise a demotion to Stage 2 status; however the problem is nowhere near solved for long. There have been many ideas bandied around on how to fix this dilemma, one of those ideas is already in action, but is it the right idea or merely the cheapest?

The plans for the pipeline to the Hickory Aquifer, which is located about 60 miles away from San Angelo, have been slowing moving along for quite some time. However this plan has sparked much debate for the main reason that many residents feel that the Hickory Aquifer is an unsafe method of gaining the necessary water, while others argue that it is the only practical source.

Those for the project do their best to point out that the alternatives to the Hickory Aquifer are unconventional and unrealistically expensive to finance. For example, the desalination of brackish groundwater, a salty water that has a lower salt concentration than seawater, which is abundant in Texas would likely produce up to 16,050 acre-feet per year of water. This plan has a capital cost of $214 million. Plans for reducing water loss from evaporation, as cities lose more water from their reservoirs to the sun than they do to their residents, have a capital cost $13 million. Water reuse projects which could potentially provide up to 12,490 acre-feet per year of water would cost $131 million. These innovative plans are not funded by the federal government and would require some financing system before they could be adopted.

 Those against the project point out the snag in the Aquifer plan: the water has seven times the Environmental Protection Agency’s approved limit of radiation and the treatment facility, to rid the water of the radiation, will absolutely not be ready by the time the pipeline project is set to be complete, in mid 2013. Therefore, a plan has been made to dilute the radiation by mixing the water into the popular lake, Lake Nasworthy. Nasworthy is not only home to all sorts of recreational water activities, but also a plethora of wildlife, not limited to the native birds, fish, and nutria. This diluted radiation would then be pumped through every source of water, whether it be a residential home or a business, connected to the water line. This plan could have unforeseeable ramifications for every resident exposed to the potentially harmful radiation. However, this is the plan that San Angelo’s leaders have designated for the community, due to the fact that all of the water plans are unfunded by the federal government, leaving Texas grasping at straws that have no safe water attached.

            As it is unlikely that the funding will come through for any other source besides the Hickory Aquifer, it seems the residents of San Angelo Texas will simply, and quite literally, have to suck it up. Without the funding for a better, safer means of obtaining water, San Angelo has little choice but to continue with the plans for the Hickory Aquifer, no matter how detrimental it may prove to be at a later date. The arguments have reached stasis, in that those fighting against the project know that without some serious capital there is no way they can change the outcome of this project, they’ve agreed to disagree. The aquifer offers a solution. That is all. Nowhere did it say that it was a good solution. But then again I suppose beggars can’t be choosers, and San Angelo is begging for water.