Friday, September 30, 2011

Not So Green After All

You hear the term "going green" everywhere these days. The new company to "go green" is the Green Mountain Power company... Or are they? The Green Mountain Power company plans to put 21 wind turbines in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. Vermont's Northeast Kingdom is one of the largest tracts of private wild land in the state of Vermont. This wind power threatens to ruin the landscape. Putting up these wind turbines will require roads to be built, and to change the whole profile of the ridgeline.  The same ridgeline that raised the state 1.4 million dollars in tourism spending. A total of 134 acres of forest will need to be cleared in order for the turbines to be created. These acres of healthy forests will be cleared with 700,000 pounds of explosives that will turn the mountain side into rubble. So, is the company really "going green" after all?

The author of this editorial, Steve E. Wright, is very persuasive with his language. His language and diction prove that he definitely does not believe the Green Mountain Power company is making the right decision. Wright uses words like "destroy," "ripping-apart," and "terrible" when talking about the destruction of the forest. Wright also uses evidence to back up his argument. He states that "The electricity generated by this project will not appreciably reduce Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions. Only 4 percent of those emissions now result from electricity generation." He also points out that, "The mountains are integral to our identity as the Green Mountain State, and provide us with clean air and water and healthy wildlife populations." Wright has completely convinced me that the Green Mountain Power company is destroying the forest, even if it is for so called, green reasons. 

Click here to view the article - The Not-So-Green Mountains

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Abortion Rights?

Abortion is a topic that either you agree with, or you don't. Since anti-abortionists know they will not reach their goal of an outright ban, they are now trying to get legislative laws passed that will make abortion more difficult for most women. Several states have already taken steps towards these restrictions. Click here to see which states have already passed restrictions. These restrictions include mandatory waiting periods, counseling sessions and parental consent. Some states even require women to have mandatory ultrasounds. During the first 8 months of this year, 61 abortion laws were enacted. These laws are weakening the view of the women who choose abortion. I have a personal connection to this article. My mother's best friend lost her baby when she was 5 and a half months pregnant. But, her hospital would not let her get an abortion because the law in Massachusetts says that you cannot get an abortion if you are over 21 weeks pregnant. So she was going to have to deliver the baby dead. She fortunately found a hospital that would give her an abortion under the radar. But, many other women might not be so fortunate.

The author of this article, Dorothy Samuels, was very persuasive. She convinced me that these laws were restricting women's rights across the country. Samuels uses words like "big-government attack" and "unconstitutional." This diction leads me to believe that Samuels does not think these restrictions are fair. Samuels also points out that "One powerful strategy of the anti-abortion forces has been to portray abortion as outside the mainstream and cast women who have abortions as immoral outsiders." This is definitely a powerful statement and a negative effect of the restrictions. Samuels knows her audience very well and has supportive evidence to prove her point.

Click here to view the article - Where Abortion Rights Are Disappearing
Click here to watch a video on the new restrictions in some states

Saturday, September 24, 2011

Justice for Women Veterans

As we all know, being a victim of sexual assault is completely unnecessary and awful for anyone to have to go through. But, it almost seems worse to think about women in the military, just trying to help our country, to have to go through it. The author of the editorial, Andrew Rosenthal, agrees with me. Many servicewomen and veterans have a hard time trying to obtain health benefits related to the sexual violence they experienced while in the military. This is a huge problem, and is definitely not fair. Women in the military are already having a hard enough time emotionally dealing with the stress, and them having to worry about sexual assault and harassment is not acceptable. If they unfortunately do have to go through this, they should at least get health care benefits after they've served for our country. Don't you think?

Andrew Rosenthal supports his opinion with evidence from Veterans Benefits Administration and The Service Women's Action Network. One point that Rosenthal made was that the "Veterans Benefits Administration approves 53 percent of all claims related to post-traumatic stress disorder, it accepts far fewer claims - only 32 percent -  when the P.T.S.D. is related to sexual trauma." This statement makes me think that Rosenthal does not think that this is acceptable. Rosenthal also mentions that The Service Women's Action Network sued the the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act. Rosenthal states that women can be "traumatized" by the "hostility of the bureaucracy that is supposed to help them." Although Rosenthal believes this is a major problem in today's society, he still has hope. He says, "Making it easier for those suffering from sexual trauma to receive benefits is one step toward fairness."

Click here to check out the article - Justice for Women Veterans

Monday, September 19, 2011

The Spirit of the Game

Personally, I loved this editorial. I, thanks to my mother, am a huge professional tennis fan. I watch all of the grand slam tournaments with my mom, so I found this article very interesting. I completely agree with what the author is trying to get across. I think that Rafael Nadal, this year's US Open runner-up, was very graceful after he lost the 4-set upsetting battle to Novak Djokovic. He was definitely "a reminder of what good sportsmanship really means." As you've probably seen before, a lot of professional athletes make up excuses or blame someone for their loss when they lose a big game or match. Rafael Nadal did the opposite of that. He had nothing but good things to say about his opponent, and has lots of respect for him. I think because of this Rafael Nadal is a great role-model for young athletes. 

I believe that the author of this editorial, Andrew Rosenthal, knew his audience very well. Rosenthal knew his subject and exactly who was going to read this article: tennis fans. I know this because Rosenthal did not do a lot of explaining about the two athletes or even the game of tennis, he dove right into the good stuff. Rosenthal's purpose of this article was very clear to see. He wanted to explain the sportsmanship and work ethic of professional tennis player, Rafael Nadal. Rosenthal's diction shows that he is a fan of Rafael Nadal. He uses words like "graciousness," "polite," "soft-spoken," and "generous." Rosenthal says that, "It was moving to watch a man who had played with so much heart also speak with so much heart." All in all, Rosenthal understands his audience very well and thoroughly states his purpose. 

Click here to check out the article - The Spirit of the Game