Why China Should Bail Out Europe

     Yes, Europe is in debt, but so is everywhere else! We're all in the same boat, up a creek without a paddle. Turning to China to solve economic problems is NOT the thing to do. Europe would not only in be debt to China, but would also become economically dependent upon them, like so many other countries. China is becoming a super-power. They are on the rise, and rising fast. Nations are making themselves more vulnerable to China than necessary. "From China’s perspective, the possible advantage would be to exert power to obtain direct and concrete benefits. For example, it could ask for market economy status in Europe, which would reduce the scope for protectionist action against Chinese goods entering the European market. It could also seek to buy companies in distressed countries on advantageous terms." If China is allowed to bail out Europe, China's economic and and cultural dominance would be set in stone. I'm not going to go all "conspirocy theory", I'm going to say that China outnumbers other nations, I'm not going to say that Chinais bent on world domination, or any of that crazy talk, but I will say it is not wise for Europe to become to dependant to China. Not only would it upset the balance of the world economy, it would upset the balance of an entire continent. One nation should not be subject to so much power.      My opinon obviously differs to that of the authors, Arvind Subramanian, in the article "Why China Should Bail Out Europe". He tries (unsucesfully in my case) to use logos to convince the reader that it is in Europe's best interest to have China bail them out of their economic crisis. He only explores one side of the arguement. He states that Europe is in dire straits (not the band), and that China is their only option. "Europeans are running out of options; debtors cannot be choosers."  Too much political and economic power is never a good thing. China is on the rise, while all other nations descend. This is kind of scary.

>>>to view article Why China Should Bail Out Europe <<<

Buffering the Grand Canyon

   The Grand Canyon is one of our nation's many monuments. In society today, we treasure art, towers, bridges, cities, and bulidngs, but seldom treasure the beautiful architecture of nature. The first to recognize the importance of preserving cush a grand and awe inspiring land mark wasTheodore Roosevelt, president, conservationalist, and lover of nature. He realised that the Canyon "was America’s Westminster Abbey, Louvre and Taj Mahal rolled into one." Back in Roosevelt's time, the threat of mining and robbing the landmark of its beauty was very real. That threat still looms today. "Mining companies, foreign and domestic, have been filing claims to extract uranium from the surrounding national forest." Most, like Roosevelt, believe that tampering with such a great wonder of nature is criminal. Man cannot add beauty to nature, it should be left in its natural state. "You cannot improve upon it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.” Roosevelt took a stand for the magnitude and beauty of this monument. He dedicated his life to protecting the Canyon, and now that he's gone, someone must continue his life's work. Someone must once again take a stand against the butchering of this grand monument. Someone, Anyone! Take a stand for the Grand Canyon.
    The author of "Butchering the Grand Canyon", Douglas Brinkley, clearly is a lover of nature (or perhaps just the Grand Canyon), and he let's the reader know it! His opinion becomes very clear in the first line of the article, "IN 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t need a guidebook to tell him that the Grand Canyon was the most precious heirloom the United States possessed." He uses a mix of pathos and logos to try and persuade the reader that the mining of the grand canyon is wrong, and easily preventable. He highlights the negative affects the mining will have, and who should stand up to the plate and face them head on. "The Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and others are well aware of the sorry legacy left behind by uranium miners, with abandoned mines, contaminated wells and radiation hazards that endure years later." The author goes to say that Obama should follow in Roosevelt's footsteps and take government action against the mining companies and their allies in congress, "  This is all the more reason President Obama should follow Roosevelt’s example and use the Antiquities Act to preserve the national forest and other public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon as a national monument." In the end, the author just hopes that he could get the point across to readers that nature is worth preserving, it is beautiful part of life, and we should do our best to maintain it for future generations.     

>>>to view article Buffering the Grand Canyon <<<

OUTSIDE READING BOOK

Im reading Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. It beith a classic, and it beith a light read.

Our Amish, Ourselves

    I had no idea just how crazy those Amish were until I read this article. Many have always viewed the Amish as a backwards cult obsessed with religion, but I just felt bad for them. Their culture is forced upon them by their families, and any individual who wishes to enter the "real" world (or what we percieve as real) is disowned by his or her family. I've always felt like people have judged them, but I respeted them. I respected them for living simply. I do not personally know any Amish, but the author comes from an are with a large conservative population of Amish. He says that people living in that are either love or hate them. "Unlike those parts of America without large Amish populations that tend to romanticize the community, here things take on a more fundamental, some might even say practical, prejudice." Some think the Amish are getting away with something, have too many secrets, or somehow cheat the system. They resent them for buying up so much of the land and inconveniencing them with their buggies and horse droppings on the road. Alll this combined, people living in Amish populated towns have developed some prejiduces. People just love to poke holes in the fabric of Amish solidarity. People in the author's town love to discredit the Amish, and all of the different sects and doctrinal splits, which are as common in the community as straw hats and hay wagons, are perfect evidence. "All Amish seem to fall into the trap of believing their way is the true Amish way." Amish communities are all different, but one common thing they all share is the burden of being viewed by others in such a scrutinizing way.
     I chose "Our Amish, Ourselves" by Joe Mckall because of the mystery that encircles the amish culture. The author put a personal spin on the article, talking about the Amish in his own town. He mentions his Amish friends, but admits to getting sucked into the anti-Amish whirlwind whenever the media points out Amish flaws. He relys heavily on pathos.

GENITAL WARTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

         Sex ed. Hmmm this class brings back so many warm and fuzzy memories, doesn't it? The awkward silences, Ms. Cameau pulling teeth to get an answer out of the students, and the punk in the back of the room that cries out "GENITAL WARTS!" Ahhhh, those were the days. I learned and saw things in that class that I never will forget! ....I couldn't even if I tried..... Sex ed; such fond, fond memories...I assume it's safe to say that for the majority of students, sex ed is uncomfortable, but not unbearable. Students may dread going into class and giving a presentation on herpes and gonorrhea, but they walk away from the class feeling like they really learned something; something vital to their health and well being. Sex ed, in my opinion, is crucial. Students need to be educated about all the dangers out there in this world that could potentially harm their health, and devastate their lives. That being said, I strongly believe that sex ed shouldn't be taught to middle schoolers. Why expose them to something so mature so early on? Why educate our children on how to be/act like an adult? Teaching them about sex ed so early will most likely only give students 'ideas' if you catch my drift. Sex ed should be taught to all students, but not to 10 and 11 years old. At least wait until highschool. However, some schools do not see it this way, they make sex ed mandatory for children during their first years of middle school. As one could imagine, this outraged and shocked many parents who did not want to expose their children to such a mature curriculum. WHY TEACH BABIES ABOUT MAKING BABIES? " Should the government force parents — at least those not rich enough to afford private schooling — to send their children to classes that may contradict their moral and religious values on matters of intimacy and personal conduct?" Nope! The right of a parent is to raise, educate, and protect their children, this curriculum is infringing those rights. " But it is not abuse or neglect to protect the innocence of preteenage children or to teach one’s children more conservative, as opposed to more liberal, moral values. Nor is it wrong or unreasonable to limit the state’s control over what one’s children learn and think about sensitive issues of morality. On the contrary, that is just what is required if parents are to fulfill their duties and exercise their legitimate rights. " Our society is sexualizing children at younger and younger ages. It's every parent's and every citezen's job to stand up in opposition, and preserve our children's innosence. There's a time and a place for everything, it is not the time for sex ed in middle school.
         I chose "Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?" by Robert P. George because of the title's lingering question. I wanted to know the answer to that question. The author relys heavily on a mix on ethos and pathos to answer this question. George argues that "turning a classroom into a mandatory catechism lesson for a contested ideology is a serious violation of parental rights." He believes that it is a parent's responsibility to shield and educate their child, and that the school systems are stepping in the way of them being able to carry out those responiblities. Parents should have more of a say of what goes on in their child's classroom. Whether you're liberal or conservative, you can't dispute that parents should have more of a say on such personal matters.

>>>To read more on article>>>Does Sex Ed Undermine Parental Rights?

Oh sweet communist

No More Adventures in Wonderland

    Alice in Wonderland is my all time favorite childrens book....ever. No other book even competes to this one, it's sentimental value is incalcuable, truly pricless. My grandfather would pull me up on his lap, and read. Just pick up the book at a random part and read to me. I loved listening to the story of a little girl lost in some magical world of make believe. The book embodies the essence of childhood perfectly. Looking back, this book never gave me anything to fear. There was no deeper meaning or symbolysm, it was just a book written for the imagination of a child, plain and simple. This is not the case with childrens books today. Writers like Carol and Barrie (Neverland) fully entered themselves into the imaginative worlds of children. They wrote stroies appealing to childrens' fantasies, but modern children books deal much more with 'adult like' themes. "Instead of stories about children who will not grow up, we have staories about children who stuggle to survive." It seems that in every modern childrens book, there is an unprecedented amount of adult reality. Many authors of youth fiction have admitted that their stories are greatly influenced by their everyday lives; their struggles, their anxieties, and their fears. J.K Rowling admitts that the Harry Potter series is largely about death. Her dementors are also inspired by a grim topic, her clinical depression. These books are supposed to be written for children and their creative imaginations. Now when these children pick up a book they're getting a lesson on the deeper meaning of life and morality. A child could truly lose his or herself in the children's books of the past, but now, books are making children think more critically about life, and making them prone to nightmares. Is this change in children's novels a good thing or a bad thing? If you were a child, what would you prefer?
       Maria Tartar, author of "No More Adventures in Wonderland" uses pathos in this article. She presents both sides of the question, and leaves the reader to answer the question based on their emotional connection to the piece. "These writers have successfully produced new literary contact zones for adults and children, with monumental narratives about loss, suffering and redemption.
Still, it is hard not to mourn the decline of the literary tradition invented by Carroll and Barrie, for they also bridged generational divides. No other writers more fully entered the imaginative worlds of children — where danger is balanced by enchantment — and reproduced their magic on the page." In today’s stories, those safety zones are rapidly vanishing as adult anxieties edge out childhood fantasy.        
To read more on article>>> No More Adventures in Wonderland <<<