Close to extinction?

Hello, and welcome again to my blog. Today, I’d like to talk about the article Going, Going, GONE? by Richard Pearson. This article is about how many species of animals are currently endangered, and how we could be close to another mass extinction (not unlike the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.)

Nearly 20,000 species of living creatures around the globe are at a high risk of extinction. If all of the species listed as threatened on the Red List, the list of living things at risk compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, went extinct, then we could lose three quarters of all species within the short span of a few centuries. The last mass extinction like this potential one happened about 65 million years ago: the extinction of the dinosaurs. If this decline increases, much of the life on Earth could die off.

 

Researchers have been recording the number of living organisms in the world, and have said that if the present trends of decline continue, a mass extinction is very likely to happen, except this time the extinction could have been prevented. Instead of being caused by a quick climate change or a stray asteroid, it will be caused by a species abusing the planet. Humanity has been greatly modifying the landscape, and increasing the rate of the poisonous gases entering the air; we hurt the planet and its inhabitants knowingly, yet we do nothing to stop ourselves. The animals and plants that are dying hold together the ecosystems that help us survive, yet as they die they will cause a chain reaction that could have disastrous results.

In my opinion, we should be doing more to keep our planet healthy. This may seem stupid and not of great importance to most, but we need to be able to keep the place that we live healthy, or we could cause another mass extinction. And what will happen to us then?  Our species will probably come close to extinction as well, so we should try to keep our planet clean and alive while we can.

Image: http://philsanko.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/planet-earth-space.jpg

Energy Independence

 

                Hello, and welcome to my blog! Yesterday I read an article by Clifford Krauss and Eric Lipton titled We’ve Got the Power. This article covered how an increase in oil and gas production and increased conservation are bringing the U.S. closer to energy independence.

                All across the U.S., the oil and gas industry is increasing at a quickening rate. Also, the U.S. has decreased their overall gasoline usage. Many have switched to alternative fuels or more fuel-efficient vehicles. Together, these actions are making the United States less dependent on the somewhat hostile countries from which we receive most of our gasoline. In the past three years, we have reduced 20% of gasoline imports from foreign countries. With the new technology of fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, oil and gas can be extracted from a large amount of underground area, making the collection much more effective and making it easier to acquire oil and gas. Also, climate change is causing oil consumption to decrease. As people become more environment-friendly, they are burning less oil and gas. Overall, the U.S. is getting very close to achieving the goal of energy independence.

                I believe that the United States is fully capable of quickly reaching this goal, as long as everyone becomes a little more energy conscious. With fracking and the climate change, America is changing rapidly and is becoming much more independent energy-wise. Also, with many more fuel-efficient cars on the road today, energy usage decreases even more. Within a few years, America could soon become almost completely energy independent.

 

Picture: http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/fracking-diagram.gif

Women in the Military

               Hello, and welcome back to my blog. A little while ago, I read an article called Sisters in Arms by James Dao. This article was about the fact that the U.S. military just recently lifted their long-standing ban on women in combat.

                In January of this year, the Department of Defense announced that it will be lifting the ban on women in combat.  Now over 200,000 combat roles are open to women as well as men, although the standards needed to join will not be lowered to make it easier for women to get the jobs. Non-combat jobs in the military have been available to women for many years, but combat jobs have not been. Yet women have still gotten injured and even killed in battle, so it was only a matter of time before they were allowed to have actual combat roles. 12% of the Americans serving in the armed forces since 2001 have been women, and the public generally agrees with lifting the ban. Now officers in the army can appoint the best person for the job, regardless of gender. Women are fully capable of carrying the same equipment as men, and can fill the combat roles just as well.

                I believe that this ban was pointless in the first place, as there was no need for it. Why should women be kept out of combat, but men allowed in it? Women are just as able to participate in close combat as men, and have been for years. Even if they aren’t formally in combat, they still shoot and get shot and even die. They are just as capable of carrying heavy equipment and living in rougher conditions. Times have changed, and nowadays the ban just seemed silly, so I believe it was right to remove it. The ban was pointless and ineffective.

 

 

Picture:https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiw6JsesHbwzWFoDSCsEKejHpJED2LjH3bn8lYVsqOqiMTeSgqa9SRKJUhlbKF53SCSdhrO4I7ZC7iN1Bp1kcC2aoiYU8AmlzJZEBp1Vj-H6OrxCkiuOV-XG450XGq0PjHEYf3GOoQlvRzm/s1600/photo1.jpg

Hello, and welcome to my blog. In the Upfront magazine, I read an article called “Celebrities for Sale” by Mark Bittman. The article covered how celebrities should be more thoughtful about which companies they make deals with, as many can cause dangerous problems.

Recently, Beyonce Knowles made a multi-year deal with Pepsi for $50 million. Like many other celebrities, she is lending her image to this company to endorse their product. But is what she is doing right? Soda and many other similar foods and drinks cause obesity and other related issues, yet she is encouraging others to consume it. She has no need for the money, either. Beyonce has donated to Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to get children to be more active, but she has also now put her face on a product that counteracts that campaign. Many other celebrities have also lent their image to similar companies.

 

I believe that this is not a wise decision. Celebrities shouldn’t endorse any products that can cause harmful and even life-threating conditions. Soda, for instance, isn’t real food.  It contains calories that don’t satisfy your appetite but instead lead directly to weight gain. Celebrities paint a picture saying that if you use this product, you can be as rich and glamorous as they are; this certainly isn’t true. They should think more before they sign a contract with a company whose decisions are affecting so many people negatively.

 

Picture: http://www.intelligentvending.co.uk/image/1/658/pepsi-can-330ml.jpg 

Does Texting Affect Our Writing?

Welcome back to my blog. I recently read an article called “F in Grammar? Maybe It’s Your Phone’s Fault” by Alessandra Potenza, and I’ve decided to post about my thoughts on it. The topic of the article: How texting and tweeting are affecting how teens and younger adults write.

The writing of many young people has been declining in quality over the past few years. English teachers, college admissions officers, and employers are finding a lot more mistakes in grammar and writing then they used to. The problem is increasing in the age of social media (with networks like Facebook and Twitter) and texting. A 2008 study of teenage grammar yielded some interesting results.  It found that 64 percent of teenagers used an informal writing style (like those used in texting) in their schoolwork. 50 percent used unnecessary or improper capitalization, 38 percent used LOL, and 25 percent even included emoticons. But even that was five years ago. The English language is always evolving, but this time it may not be in a good way.

 

Spell check is another factor that is changing the English language and affecting how teens write. With spell check, you don’t have to spell things perfectly, as the program will tell you what you spelled wrong, and then give you options to correct your writing with. This could actually be a very useful tool if people took the time to proofread what they wrote and go back and fix it, and it could also be used to learn from your mistakes so you won’t make them again. But many people are too lazy to go back and fix their errors, and others don’t really learn from their mistakes and make the same ones on tests and quizzes without the spellcheck. Living in an age of technology, we should use it to our advantage, not just to tweet or communicate with friends.

Lastly, as I have already mentioned, the English language is constantly evolving. Many say that the language is going down the tubes, but Patricia O’Connor, a blogger at Grammarphobia, has other ideas. “‘Ever since the days of Chaucer, people have been complaining ‘Oh, English isn’t what it was. It’s been corrupted.’ …And the truth is, English is a living language.’”  She argues that the evolving grammar is perfectly natural. I agree only to some extent; the language is definitely evolving, but I hope we never get to a day where “i realy like to 2 go 2 places with my friends” is correct grammar and perfectly acceptable. But for now, the colleges and employers will not accept applications like those. As O’Connor says, even with the language’s evolution, “‘People are going to judge you by what you write.’”

 

Picture: http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/SIOW/texting2%5B1%5D.jpg

The "Burqa Ban"

Hello there again! Just a little while ago I received another Upfront magazine, and I happened to find an interesting article to post about. The article, “Unveiling Europe” by Veronica Majerol, talked about the “burqa ban” that was put into effect in April 2011. This law “forbids covering one’s face in public”, and for religious purposes it affects about 2,000 French Muslim women.

The creators and the supporters of the law say that allowing people to hide their faces in public prevents them from fully participating in French society and could enable crime or even terrorism. But many critics believe the law stems from the increasing anti-Muslim sentiment in France and all across Europe. The French believe in secularism, which is the idea that religion should be kept out of public life, and think the Muslim women should not be able to wear the religious head coverings in public. But many of the women feel as though the ban in taking away their right to religious freedom.

I think that the ban should be removed, as I agree with the women in the thought that it is taking away their religious freedom. The Muslims should be allowed to wear the burqas if they want to; it is an integral part of their culture and important to their way of life, so no one should be able to prevent them from wearing the coverings. If they do not want to wear them, they shouldn’t be forced to wear them, but otherwise they shouldn’t be restricted. Instead of protecting rights, the ban is taking them away.

The First Post

                Now I’ve finally taken the time to post on my blog! Before I get to what I actually wanted to talk about, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to read this. Welcome to my blog.

                Onto the actual topic! I recently read an article that was quite interesting; the title was “Arctic Meltdown” by Justin Gillis and Elisabeth Rosenthal. The title sums up the article well, as it covers the topic of the rapidly melting ice in the Arctic Ocean. This article covers the study of global warming and increasing world temperatures, and how we are causing them.

                In my opinion, we should probably be paying more attention to what we are doing to the Earth. I, personally, want to keep an eye on what I’m doing to the planet that I live on and that I need to survive. In the article, it is mentioned that global warming may lead to severe weather patterns; I definitely believe this is true. I have noticed that the amount of bad storms we have been receiving increases a bit every year, and that every year we seem to get less snow and have less cold weather. I can tell that the climate is changing without even having to do an in-depth analysis of it.

                Also, it mentions the rising of the oceans. The article stated that the biggest worry is “the potential for a large rise in the level of the world’s oceans.” I don’t believe that this will cause that much of a problem as the ice from which the water would come is already in the water and displacing that water so the ice underwater would just change to water. It is only the ice above water level that the melting of would cause any rise in the water level. Still, this definitely should be watched carefully.

                Many people don’t really take the time to actually think about what they are doing and how it will affect the future, but they should. Thank you for reading this, and have a great day!