Final Essay

South Africa has many tourist attractions, one being, many wildlife preserves where they claim to be “protecting” the animals. In these preserves they offer safaris, and allow you to interact with the wild life all for a fee. It all seems so harmless, but in reality it’s just a hunting ground in disguise. Canned hunting grounds of all type should have operations shut down due to the disturbing treatment of wildlife that solely rely on the funds from the wealthy who want to bring a souvenir home, and the lies sold to visiting individuals, completely clueless of what is really occurring. 

Canned hunting is when people pay thousands of dollars to come to a game ranch or preserve where the wildlife roams about in a fenced in area. With nowhere to escape, this guarantees the hunter a trophy kill. In other words, it’s the lazy way to hunt.  It’s ridiculous that something that was once all about hunting for food to live is now about who can kill a bigger animal to hang its head in their den. On the website for Africa Hunt Lodge, a canned hunting range in South Africa, they offer a wide range of wild life to be hunted and various hunting packages. These wealthy individuals pay thousands of dollars to hunt anything from baboons and deer native to Africa, to big cats and even white rhinos. Even more shocking to see find was that some of the animals on the hunt list are endangered species.

These fenced in grounds where canned hunts are available are known by many different names such as hunting preserves, game ranches, shooting preserves, etc., but the actual names often don’t advertise that they offer hunting because they want to appeal to the non-hunters also. An example that lives up to this is Moreson Ranch in South Africa. For the hunters, they charge a daily fee of a few hundred dollars just to be on the ground and another fee for the animal they want to kill. Prices for a kill range between $90 to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the animal. As for the non-hunters, the people who are just there to see and interact with the wild life, they offer game viewing where you can drive through the grounds for a fee of and observe the wildlife for $270 or play with the lion cubs for $60 per person. These fees are vital to the game ranches staying in business, the only reason the government allows them to operate is because of the income they bring to the country.

These facilities take cubs from their mothers by blowing a horn so the lioness is scared away so fast she leaves her cubs. The average time the cubs stay with their mother is six months before they get weaned away, so when they are taken so early they miss out on missing out on the vital first milk from the mother, which can cause frequent ill-health. Many of those who volunteer at these hunt grounds are there because they think that they are helping the cubs to be released into the wild again once they grow up. This is because the malicious owners of the game ranches, that believe there is nothing wrong with taking an animal from its mother hours after birth, tell the volunteers that the cubs were rejected by their mother at birth rather than the truth. They don’t tell the volunteers that because if the cubs are raised by humans they will have little fear of them when they are released into the range, so that when a hunter comes close the animal won’t run and the hunter will get his kill.

Another cruel factor to the canned hunting industry is the risk of disease for the animals. The most common disease among many of the animals being transported and held at the ranches is Chronic Wasting Disease (aka Mad Cow Disease). This disease becomes extremely difficult to control and attempting to cure the animals of it can cost taxpayers millions. When an animal escapes one of the ranches environmental contamination becomes a huge threat. These ranches aren't only putting the animals kept at the ranch at risk, but also animals in the wild and animals that are pets.

 At one point five years ago, South American Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus Van Schalkwyk, tried to forbid people to participate in canned hunting by stating an animal couldn’t be hunted unless it had spent two years in the wild. They thought this would be successful because it was going against breeders and hunters, the two groups that depend on the outcome of canned hunting. Sadly, the breeders challenged the government and they caved because the breeders were bringing in over $450 million. It soon became quite clear who was running the show, because soon after a high court judge ruled the restrictions were not rational. Mac McDaniel, writer and environmentalist for Care2, spoke on this saying, “Minister Van Schalkwyk’s mistake was to trying to regulate canned hunting instead of abolishing it outright. A mistake that we see all too often in animal advocacy. “

              After the new regulations on canned hunting failed to stick, the number of exotic trophy hunted animals skyrocketed. The lion species has been the most sought after in South Africa and between 2001 and 2006 there were 1,830 lion trophies shipped out of the country. In the following five years that number became 4,062, which was a 122% increase in lions killed for a trophy, and for what? Most likely to be shown off in someone’s home so they can brag about what brilliant hunters they are.

While South Africa is increasing dramatically in these one-sided hunts, other African countries are losing their canned hunting business. Before South Africa was the biggest canned hunting country, Tanzania and Zimbabwe thrived in the business. One of the reasons south Africa is on the incline is because most of the animals in their canned hunts are bread or bought for it, whereas in Tanzania and Zimbabwe they were using lions straight out of the wild and catching them or luring them in. However, that method of acquiring animals for trophy hunting is no longer “allowed” by the government because the population of wild lions and other big cats were decreasing at an unsustainable rate. In Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use, Robin Hurt and Pauline Ravn inform, “Wildlife is plentiful in some country locations but is being poached mercilessly in others. Only through effective regulation will it be preserved and turned to the benefit of the countries and their communities. If local communities and landowners on whose land wildlife feeds do not benefit from wildlife, they will not conserve it.”

To my surprise I found out that the second largest area for canned hunting is in our very own back yards. That’s right, there are an estimated 1,000 ranches that offer canned hunting in the US, and 28 states participate in the business. Texas alone is home to 500 ranches where canned hunting is available. I was appalled to see this information and have had no idea about it until now. At first I figured the canned hunts going on in the US would have animals only found native to here like deer, elk, moose, boar, etc., but I was surprised yet again. In the US you can hunt almost all of the same animals found in the South Africa hunting ranches. The ranch owners often purchase these animals from breeders, dealers, auctions, even zoos or circuses. While they claim to offer only species that are non-endangered, illicit dealers in the exotic "pet” trade often permit the sale of endangered animals knowing the intention is for them to be hunted.

One would think there would already be a ban on these kinds of actions in the United States, but astonishingly there is no law that bans these activities. The only federal laws that somewhat touch on canned hunting is the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act prohibits taking, importing, exporting, selling or offering to sell any listed endangered or threatened species. What the Act defines as “taking” is harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any behavior of the sort. However, it is stated that, “An exception is made by allowing the issuance of a permit authorizing otherwise-prohibited activities for scientific purposes. Often, canned hunt owners or operators will have a permit for importation, captivity, breeding, and hunting of these endangered species.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gladly issues these permits, and allows the ranches to kill as many endangered species as they please all because of "the propagation of the survival of the species" exception. These decisions are left to the state wildlife agencies because canned hunts mostly take place on game reserves and ranches, which are private property. Since they are private property wildlife laws are loose and vague, for example there are no caps on numbers of kills made. Hunters on these grounds also aren’t required to carry hunting or firearm licenses which is obscene and a safety hazard. The owners of the ranches don’t care though, as long as they’re getting their money they don’t care how experienced someone is, or what animals are being killed.

Recently, in April 2015, Senator of New York Tony Avella presented a bill that will ban the sale and transportation of 5 exotic animals that are popular amongst canned hunts. The species being protected by this bill are lions, leopards, elephants, and black and white rhinos. When Senator Avella announced this bill on the steps of city hall before many animal rights advocates, he stated, “There’s a huge number of animal rights advocates in New York and throughout the country and the world who want to preserve these animals. If we don’t take steps now, they will be extinct. And future generations will not know that they ever existed.” If the rest of the states in the US were to pass this bill then our country would be a better place.

Not only is New York participating in the ban of exotic animals and their trophies coming across the borders, but Australia is taking part in the actions too. In March, 2015, Environment Minister Greg Hunt announced at the Global March for Lions in Melbourne there will be a ban on the import and export of trophies made from lions. The reasoning for this is that lions were recently categorized as vulnerable to extinction by the IUCN Red List of threatened Species. Minister Hunt spoke on canned hunting at the march and educated many on the truth behind it. Hunt addressed the new ban informing, “These new rules mean that if you go overseas and engage in the appalling act of canned hunting, you can forget about bringing your lion trophies back to Australia. You don’t deserve the right to celebrate the slaughter of these amazing creatures.”

The barbaric tendencies of human beings will never cease to amaze me. As an animal lover, it pained me to read about people finding happiness and fun in poor defenseless animals being raised just to get murdered and they never even get a chance at life. I wish there were a way to get the same reaction out of the ranch owners and hunters that I have about canned hunting. Maybe then it would make them think twice about harming the future of our wildlife, and less about pointless ways to blow their thousands of dollars and waste their free time. I pray that one day all 50 states of the US will pass laws and bills banning these cruel activities and follow in the footsteps of what Senator Avilla and Minister Hunt are trying to do for the endangered wildlife. I will never understand why someone would want to harm an innocent animal for fun, all I wish for is that it ends soon before some of these species end up gone forever.

When Peace Officers Dress for War Summary

When police officers are coming at you dressed for battle with military grade weaponry they see it as being ready for anything, but what the people see is a threat and it just escalates the outcome of the situation. It is highly unnecessary for small town police departments to acquire military weapons. Especially when they aren't required to have any training on how to use it, but are expected to use it within one year. Since they're expected to use it in such a small amount of time and our country has no issues that call for that level of weapons, then the police are just going to use this equipment in obscene ways.

This equipment and uniforms from the military could also put police into a different state of mind. police of most towns don't see much war like activity if any, but when they have the means to dress the part of a soldier they might actually act like they're going into battle. This will just make problems worse when they begin to bring these big guns to small disturbances. The most common example is what happened in Ferguson, MO. When a couple small riots began, the police brought out guns, heavy duty uniforms, guns, even tanks, and what did that do? The whole town became a war zone and all of the people turned against the police because they felt so threatened.

National Geographic America's Hardest Prison Predators Summary

The video I chose to watch was National Geographic America's Hardest Prison Predators. The show followed two inmates in Lebanon prison as their story is told. The first inmate was Alberta who was in prison for shooting a man four times in a drug deal gone wrong. He is also a leader of the Crip gang, therefor Albert is very respected in the prison because people are afraid of him. The second inmate was Scott and had just been sentenced to prison for getting into a car accident with a pregnant woman killing her unborn child. Unlike Albert, Scott was at the bottom of the food chain since he had only been there a few days.

It was interesting to see what goes on inside this prison and how many inmates turn to gangs just so they can be a part of a group for protection while they are locked up. During the shake down portion i defiantly thought the officers would find more weapons than they did due to the amount of gang members there were and it also seemed like a lot of fights occurred. What most surprised me was when Albert met with the mother and wife of the man he shot. While I thought it was very thoughtful of him to do so they could have closure, I wouldn't have guessed a leader of a dangerous gang would do something like that.

Critical Review

                                                   The Magnificent Budapest Hotel

The immense amount of mesmerizing detail put into The Grand Budapest Hotel by Wes Anderson makes it clear why it is a complex and award winning film. The Grand Budapest Hotel has every element you could possibly think of from side splitting comedy and cold blooded killers, to romance that warms your heart and mystery that keeps you guessing. For me, it has to be the stunning miniatures and detail in every nook and cranny that wins my stamp of approval.

The first scene is present day, and a girl is walking into a cemetery, then sits down to read a pink delicate looking book titled: The Grand Budapest Hotel. This is the first hint of detail that catches your eye. For a few short seconds there is a close up of the book and it has the hotel on it with “Grand Budapest Hotel” in big letters and the background is filled with the infamous cross keys all of the concierges’ seen throughout the movie have pins of.  When she opens the book a narrator chimes in who is also the author of the book, and it shows him doing an on camera interview speaking about the book in 1985. When the narrator begins telling his story the setting changes, and you are in a hotel lobby with a much younger version of himself when he begins enlightening us of his experience at The Grand Budapest Hotel in 1968.

In this time period the hotel is looking rather tacky and outdated, and the narrator begins to ask the bellhop about a man across the room reading the newspaper. He finds that this mystery, gray-bearded man is Mr. Moustafa and he stays in the same cramped, corner room every few months. The next day Mr. Moustafa approaches him and requests that he dines with him. Of course he is intrigued by the invitation and accepts. Once at dinner, Mr. Moustafa orders them all of the best cuisine for an exquisite dining experience just before he begins to reminisce on his time at The Grand Budapest Hotel.

At this time, not only does the time period and setting change, but so does the screen formatting. From that point on whenever the author of the book was narrating from the 1968 or 1985 time periods the screen was wide, but once Mr. Moustafa began to narrate the screen format was narrow. I have never seen anything like that happen in a movie before, but I liked it because it distinguished one time period and narrator from the other.

             Throughout the movie when the characters are traveling in outdoor settings through the town and mountains you can immediately tell that the backgrounds aren’t real. They have clearly been crafted and they were, by Annie Atkins who is a well-known graphic designer with an astounding talent. Atkins is responsible for the hand crafting of hundreds of backdrops and miniatures that really tie this film together. Some of the most noticed pieces she made were of the infamous Mendel’s pastries from the pastel pink and blue boxes, to the fancy little pastries, even the one that made it into the jail with tiny digging tools inside. My personal favorite props Atkins put an astounding amount of work into were the written out ones such as the newspapers, police report and passports.

              These might not seem like they would have a lot of detail put into them but that is where people are wrong. Whenever a newspaper is shown in the picture its main focus is a specific article, for example when Madame D. is murdered. What no one notices is everything else on the page that Annie Atkins created. In order to make it seem realistic she wrote fake articles relating to that time period and a weather report to go with it. The police report she created when Kovacs is murdered only is shown on screen for enough time to get a glimpse of it, but this also has ample detail imbedded. When you really get a good look Atkins wrote a conclusive report about how Kovacs died and there is a section with spaces for finger prints of all 10 fingers, but only 6 fingerprints are there since the other 4 were severed. Lastly Agathas passport looks so real it could pass as the real thing. The photo looks precise to one from the early 1900’s and is stamped complete with all of Agathas personal information such as birthday, height, and even under distinguishing features it says “birthmark on face shaped like Mexico”.

               When Annie Atkins was asked in an interview with Creative Review what her favorite piece she designed for the movie was she replied, “My absolute favorite piece is the book itself that opens the story. It's a modern pink hardback with a drawing of the hotel on the front, and the name of the movie as the hotel sign. It's a relatively simple piece, but it's really special having a prop that you made with the movie's name on it like that.” Earlier in the review I mentioned that this book is the first detailed piece you notice.

Kyle Smith from The New York Post wrote a review on the film, one of his statements being, “GBH is a featherweight screwball comedy that, trying mightily to be cosmopolitan, feels awfully provincial, desperately touristy: Europe is just this nutty place where a lot of crazy mixed-up stuff happened and look at this darling model ski lift! That’s Wes Anderson”. In my opinion these characteristics are what I like about it. The movie isn’t trying to be cosmopolitan, it is cosmopolitan, and who says that’s a bad thing? The movie has a lot of diversity which appeals to many different people. Giving the environment around the hotel a local feel gives it a more welcoming feel. I couldn’t imagine this movie having a big city setting, after all, the time period is in the early 1900’s when many European cities were still in the making. As for being “desperately touristy”, the movie IS based on a hotel, where tourists stay when they travel so being touristy also works for the movie.

The Grand Budapest Hotel shows grave amounts of detail that make this motion picture so astounding. I cannot express how much I adore everything about this movie from the directing to the meticulous artwork. Wes Anderson really chose well by Annie Atkins, this film would be nothing her keen eye for detail. Hopefully this duo will have many more masterpieces to come in the near future.

Documentary Review

The documentary, Virunga, is a great viewing experience to see the people of the Eastern Congo fighting for their land they call home.

This documentary follows a group of people in the Eastern Congo trying to keep the wildlife in Virunga National Park safe from the M23 rebels. Also investigated was SOCO International, trying to disrupt the park to obtain oil that was said to be in the area. In the film reporters go undercover to gather information on their illegal plans to take from the natural resources of Virunga National Park. They uncovered that SOCO was planning on working with M23 in order to make this happen. Also from a different perspective were the team of rangers who cared for the Gorillas and lived for keeping them safe. They risked their lives to stand against the rebels when they came to take over and they stood their ground to keep the park theirs. Virunga brings to life a lot of issues that go unknown in this part of the country. In the documentary it really brings out emotions seeing worry and sadness in the children and Gorillas when danger arrives and that'd what really gets the viewers attention. That, and all of the raw action war scenes of people in the town being shot and the rangers fighting for the station. I thought it was very informative and interesting to watch a real life perspective as these events occurred, but the best thing to see was how these people fought to keep people trying to do harm out of their territory.

Argumentative Essay

Brittany Krauss

February 10, 2015

English 102

Grant Schubert

Anti-Overdose, Or Increase in Overdose?

Naloxone, the anti-overdose drug, can save many lives, but it should not be more affordable for the use of individuals who are not medical professionals. There is nothing stopping a survivor suffering from an opioid addiction from continuing to use after overdose as long as Naloxone is available to them. Once they get possession of this so called miracle drug, there could be no stopping a user from a long life of drug addiction due to the lack of fear they will have of overdosing.

The idea of making Naloxone more affordable came about at a meeting held by The Clinton Foundation. They announced at the panel session by making the drug more affordable to the public it would save a lot of lives. Their goal is to save 10,000 in a span of 5 years, which doesn’t seem like a huge impact when almost 20,000 die of opioid overdose every year. Even with this plan the cost of one of these kits to someone who doesn’t have the right insurance could still cost upwards of $400.

Naloxone is a medication used to save people from opioid overdose. While it was approved for use against drug overdose by the Food and Drug Administration in 1971, it has more recently gotten the name of the “anti-overdose drug”. Typically this medication meant to save lives is only administered by medical professionals when users overdose from opioids such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Methadone and Heroin. There are two ways the user can be administered Naloxone; with the intranasal spray or with an auto-injectable called Evzio. Evzio is the newest way to administer Naloxone in a way similar to how an EpiPen works and also the least cost efficient option of the two.

Unfortunately, positive plans can have a few negative outcomes to consider. Naloxone is meant to be administered by professionals to someone who has overdosed and been called to the scene. While being able to have this medication on hand and more available would make response to an overdose much quicker, most commonly, drug addicts are going to try to get their hands on this overdose reversing drug. Making Naloxone more available and affordable could create a huge safety net for opioid users. Having this on hand to any user will make them have less of a fear they could overdose and die resulting in more frequent drug use and also larger doses at a time since they can be revived quickly. Thus causing them to believe they can get their high without any consequences. Patrolman Michael Brandolini, gave his opinion on addicts having access to Naloxone, "I think it's fine in the hands of first responders — police, fire and paramedics," Brandolini said. "Personally, I have reservations about giving it to the addicts themselves. I think it may give them a false sense of security.” He further went on to say that he worried addicts overdosing might try to administer the drug themselves if no one is around to help. They would most likely be unsuccessful because they would lose consciousness before it was inhaled or injected.

There is a dangerous side to making something like Naloxone more available to the public. Not only could it lead to an increase the use of opioids and heroine if users fall dependent to its life saving advantages, but it could also be administered incorrectly. Jamison Monroe Jr., CEO and founder of Newport Academy, does not feel Naloxone is ready for public distribution yet, “For right now, allowing the appropriate law enforcement and medical teams have naloxone at the ready is a way to reduce the number of deaths caused by a drug overdose and get addicts to receive proper treatment.” I agree with this statement because if Naloxone can be kept in the homes of addicts it could be administered incorrectly, or something could be wrong with the product due to the environment it’s being kept in. The average shelf life of Naloxone and the other products like it is 1-2 years if it’s being kept at room temperature or a little below. Also if the person administering the drug is say, a friend the person overdosing was using with then they could administer it incorrectly because they’re on drugs and panicking. A friend or family member who administers the drug to an could be held liable if anything were to go wrong.

Giving someone who has taken a turn for the worst in life a second chance is a great thing, but when that second chance is wasted then it’s very unpleasing. As of now, some addicts are going back to using days after a medical professional or trained officer administers Naloxone to them. If there is already a good chance of them still using when a limited amount of people possess this anti overdose drug, then why should we make it available to just anyone? Obviously most people are going to say “to save a life”, but saving a life so dependent on drugs over and over must get upsetting to the ones trying to help.

Matthew Siesto, Suffolk County police officer, spoke about an incident where he has rescued girls on a couple different occasions, “I saved that girl’s life less than 30 days later. 911 call at her house. I was a little upset that she’s still using.” At the beginning of the article, Siesto talked about a girl in a pickup truck who lost consciousness and had clearly overdosed on heroin. He said he administered the intranasal spray and revived her. It is such a disappointment to know some of these people getting multiple chances at life think so nonchalantly of it.

Side effects accompany Naloxone as they do most prescription medications. Heroin and opioid users brought back after they overdose experience withdrawal induced by the anti-overdose drug. The symptoms of withdrawal most commonly include anxiety, anger and violent behavior. Then there is precipitated withdrawal which seems even more unpleasant with more physical symptoms such as: vomiting, diarrhea, increase in blood pressure and pulse, seizure, stroke, pulmonary edema and even heart attack. The recovering addicts who experience it call it “the worst flu of one’s life.” Some people can’t handle or fear going through the process of withdrawal, so they turn back to using. Some of the addicts that live on the streets and need to have their high at all times, surprisingly, would rather die than be saved by Naloxone due to how terrible withdrawing would be for them.

One thing that some addicts underestimate is their tolerance if they choose to use again after being saved by overdose. After an addict is saved from Naloxone and uses again because they cannot make it through withdrawal, their tolerance is lowered making it easier for them to overdose the second time. Addicts who are saved from overdose and arrested once stable again have no choice but to go through withdrawal in jail. When they get released from jail what they don’t realize is they have regained high sensitivity to opioids and sadly many die of overdose within months after release.

J. David Goodman and Anemona Hartocollis, reporters for the New York Times, shed some light on the negative outcome of some users who have been saved, “Health and treatment officials caution that naloxone alone will not cure an epidemic of overdoses that claims thousands of lives each year. Users brought back from overdose often do not clamor for treatment.” The user not seeking treatment or recovery help is something else to take into consideration. Sure they can be saved from an overdose, but by not seeking treatment after the struggle through withdrawal is what puts them back to square one. If more users got the help they needed from detox and rehab clinics they wouldn’t fall victim to wanting to use again just to stop the withdrawal symptoms. Other people would probably be more inclined to help recovering addicts if they saw them really trying to recover from the addiction instead of treating an overdose like it isn’t a big deal. Not enough people see addicts taking that kind of a stance after overdose though, so they feel they would rather spend their tax dollars on a better cause if since it seems like a wasted effort to help people that won’t seek proper help.

There are always those people who ruin a good thing for other people. If addicts who overdose get proper administration of Naloxone, and get the help they need such as rehab, then this anti-overdose drug could substantially decrease the number of deaths from opioid overdose. While no one wants a loved one to die from overdose, they should want them to get the proper help they deserve to overcome their addiction for good. Until more users are guaranteed to stop using after an overdose, Naloxone should be left in the hands of medical professionals and trained police officers who have the right intentions and uses for it.

Community

In the episode of community about "meowmeowbeans", the message was how people in real life turn to social media for social acceptance. They started off thinking the app wasn't going to be as popular as it came to be, then everyone's lives revolved around it. In a way similar to how some people go to facebook posting a status or picture hoping to get a lot of likes to feel better about themselves. Only these people were looking for a higher ranking to be accepted into the 5 meowmeowbean club.

Author:Anna Almendrala
Title: Clinton Foundation To Help Make Anti-Overdose Drug More Affordable

The anti-overdose drug can save many lives, but the survivors suffering from an addiction will keep using and overdosing as long as Naloxone is available to them. The Clinton Foundation and Kaleo, the pharmaceutical company that invented Evizo, are in the process of making this anti-overdose drug more available to people overdosing on heroin, Vicodin, OxyContin, morphine and other opioids. 

Almendrala quoted Spencer Williamson, CEO of Kaleo, in an interview about making Naloxone more affordable, “In five years, the goal is to save 10,000 lives per year.” In prior years there have been over 16,000 deaths due to overdose.

While I believe saving people from death by overdose, this drug being more available could take a turn for the worse. For example making this more available to the elderly would be beneficial, because the drugs they are overdosing from aren't recreational. The elderly overdose from being unaware of the proper dosage of medication. Whereas people suffering from addiction might begin keeping Naloxone on hand so they can continue using drugs without the fear of dying instead of getting real help for their problems.

Thesis: Due to increased levels of CO2, it is believed by many scientists civilization could come to an end sooner than expected.

     In the last 10,000 years our climate has raised 1.5 degrees above average. That may not seem like a lot, but it has been enough to start melting away the arctic. David Ray Griffin quotes Lonnie Thompson, who received the U.S. National Medal of Science in 2010, said that virtually all climatologists "are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present danger to civilization."

     This has lead to an idea that if our climate can stay below a raise of 3.6 degrees, then civilization just might make it. Other scientists are lead to believe that if this 1.5 degree climate raise has started melting away the arctic, what will happen once temperatures get 3.6 degrees above average? They aren't yet sure because there is no evidence humanity could survive temperatures that high.

     The leading cause for this possible disaster is all of the burning of coal, oil and other gasses. So, how do we keep our climate from exceeding inhabitable temperatures? It would take the world to start replacing dirty energy with clean energy ASAP.

Article read: How Obama's Hacking Laws Could Make You A Criminal

Summary: The whole time reading this article I was thinking, "What good would this law do for the country?". So what if I choose to share my password to my accounts with my family or boyfriend? that would be my choice and its doing no harm. If the government were to try and fine everyone who has shared access to accounts it would be a major waste of time and money. This law, if it is even actually happening, is very vague and poorly thought out. Plus, if the government is trying to use this "law" to try and stop cyber terrorists and hackers, then I'm sure they already know of ways to not get caught.

Thesis: Is the internet eliminating the use of books because our methods of reading have changed, or because the way we think has changed?

Summary: We all read the same way we have been taught, with our eyes processing the words we see. Unless you were to go blind, that won't change. As the internet continues to evolve, it influences the population more and more and how they go about doing things. Many believe that we can learn things quicker and more efficiently by looking something up online rather than in a book.While that is true for certain subjects, people are still oblivious to the fact that not all things on the internet are true. Some of us don't even have the attention span to read a book anymore and just give up to search the web.There are still people doing their research by gathering information from Wikipedia and other unreliable sites with no reliable facts on what they are writing about. Back in the day the concern was that having such easy access to books would cause a lot more laziness and weaken our minds; isn't it funny how times have changes? Now something else has come along that we question in the same way that books used to be questioned.