Eaves, Lucas. “5 Reasons Why U.S. Isn’t Ready for Public Drone Use.” IVNus. N.p., 08 May 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://ivn.us/2013/05/08/5-reasons-why-u-s-is-not-ready-for-domestic-drone-use/>.
In this article, Eaves discusses five reasons as to why the United States isn’t ready for everyday people using drones. The reasons are sound. There is risk of abuse from using drones in a public setting that is controlled by either the local police or your average Joe. Privacy can be invaded and therefore is an issue since people have the right to privacy. Then as it is used in a public setting, it could be hazardous to the public if abused and used incorrectly. Followed by the legal framework that surrounds public drone use; there isn’t much of one. Lastly, the public perception of drones is not so great. With all that has happened like learning that the NSA spies on the public, people do not trust that drones can be used correctly by the local government and other people. By taking a few of these into consideration it is reasonable to agree that the U.S. isn’t ready for public drone use.
Yes, there is a lack of legal framework around drones and they can be used to invade other’s privacy. However, it is possible to create that legal framework. Once the framework is made then there is less likely to be problems with the public use of drone. There are already a number of rules and laws that accompany our everyday products from cell phones and cars so what would be so difficult to create them for drones. As far as invasion of privacy goes, drones don’t make that issue worse or better. People can easily invade your property and record you on their phones and then do with the footage as they wish. There are laws and rules against this but people do it anyways. Same would go for drones but it is not possible to stop everyone from breaking rules and laws.
I do not entirely agree that drones can be dangerous to the public. Anything and everything is a threat to public safety. Especially people themselves since they can go on a rampage and beat/kill others with their hands and anything they can get their hands on. Eaves makes a comparison between a pressure cooker bomb and drones. This is a false analogy since drones that are sold to the public aren’t fitted with weapons and are usually small. If any tampering is done to the drone it is likely to malfunction. In addition, at that point the drone can not be considered a drone, it is now an actual weapon with the intent to harm.
Despite this in the end I still believe that drones and the way they are used shouldn’t be banned or criminalized. There are pros and cons to the use of drones by the public but everything can be addressed correctly. Also, people can be taught what should and shouldn’t be done when using drones. So let them fly!
Yardley, Jim, and Laurie Goodstein. “Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls for Swift Action on Climate Change.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 June 2015. Web. 04 Aug. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/world/europe/pope-francis-in-sweeping-encyclical-calls-for-swift-action-on-climate-change.html>.
The controversy is again climate change and how the Pope has released a document calling for action. This is directly related to the first text since this one is actually mentioned in it. They go over the same topic, they are just different lengths and provide a different amount of information. This source shows me that the author of the editorial knows and understands what is going on. The audience this time are people who would want to know what’s happening, people who want to see news. The situation is more or less the same. The Earth is in danger, and something needs to be done about it.
They show more of a reason to trust because they are in the same community and are knowledgeable on the subject. The speakers write in a credible manner since they are reporting the news. They are simply telling the audience what the Pope is doing about climate change. Since there are a number of links in the article it is reasonable to assume that the speaker is referencing recent and relevant information for their research. In the area of the news reporting the publisher is an authority. The New York Times is known for reporting news, originally in print and now online. The news site is respected by everyone that has kept up with this source and since it is a major news outlet for a large number of people. The text has a number of citations that are either related to the scientific community on the subject or related to catholic theology; as well as quotes from the Pope. The text is arguing in a responsible manner, it doesn’t throw any one person or group of people under the bus except for everyone on Earth because the Pope kind of does that in his encyclical.
The Pope is calling to action on the issue of climate change. He did this by releasing an encyclical “Laudato Si” or “Praise Be With You.” The blame is put heavily on fossil fuel burning and human activity. The Pope warns that there will be “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequence for all of us.” One consequence noted is that is well developed nations will have to support smaller less developed ones. Pope Francis is clear that climate change is a crisis and that something must be done about it. He hopes that his encyclical will have an impact on governments policy since they will be meeting to make arrangements on the subject. This has been expected of the Pope and has thrilled many scientist. Francis criticizes anyone who denies human caused climate change or that states that the Catholic church can’t make policy or be involved in politics. His arguments are sound and based within the bible. The “most stinging rebuke is a broad critique of profit-seeking and the undue influence of technology on society.” While Francis praises our technological advances, he also sees that it has been just that, technology, and not human responsibility. He then continues that the economy will not solve our problems. Nations need to act and not just simply in an effort for their economic gain. At last, he is calling for action for he states that ““All is not lost, human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start.”
“The Pope and Climate Change.” Editorial. The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 June 2015. Web. 30 July 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/opinion/the-pope-and-climate-change.html?_r=1>.
There a large number of people that doubt climate change. Before it used to be called global warming but because by the name alone people were extremely skeptical of it. Especially when they saw more severe storms, making it colder and wetter than what you would expect. Global warming gave off the idea that it is only getting hotter. While, it was getting hotter, people couldn’t see how, they could only see that next week they were in for a cold front or heavy snow.
One reason that people probably don’t believe in climate change is because of the way the media handles it. On news broadcasts you hear reports that the scientific community is divided on whether or not the climate really is changing. However, there really isn’t any sort of disagreement in the scientific community. All the evidence to support the idea that the average temperature around the globe is increasing is there. In addition, the skeptics are also there despite the evidence. Now hearing that the Pope has written on the subject of climate change and that he believes that it is real and happening is great. It is exactly the type of message we need to hear from an “authority” figure here on Earth. The source goes over a bit of what the Pope has said, how there are some people that don’t believe in climate change, and a bit of the politics around climate change.
On a different note, the source has shown that it is aware of the Pope’s encyclical and has know about it for a while. It has a few articles talking about it being made and further discusses the message that Pope Francis is putting out. The source avoids the use of inflammatory language. It appears to me that source is credible due to the fact that it references relevant and recent information. Now the source isn’t an authority on this subject but they do a great job of presenting the information without being biased. The website itself has a large number of readers. Due to this, they will strive to be respectable and hope that people believe in something similar to what they represent. The text is carefully written with citations to other sources of information that is relevant to the editorial.
The editorial begins pretty much the same way my summary does. People are divided on the subject of climate change. However, with the Pope releasing an encyclical there are hopefully people that will see how serious the matter of climate change is. The Pope discusses how our home Earth has been reduced to filth and rubbish. “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth-in many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.” (p. 3) The editorial then moves to how this document could not have come out at a better time when global powers are meeting in an attempt to arrange an effort to act on climate change. However, there are still changes to face from Congress and other countries that simply don’t want to act on the subject. The editorial closes with a statement that addresses how hopefully congressman and others will join the Pope in the his effort against climate change.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now. Where do my strongest commitments lie? What communities am I actually a part of? Does the list I made even make any sense? Instead of really focusing on these questions I’ve been watching Netflix. Not good. I only have two answers. Not because that’s what we were limited to but because that’s all I could really come up with. The weakest of the two, which isn’t really that far from the strongest is the Summer Bridge community. The strongest, my family back in Brownsville. I mean that is why I’m here after all.
At this moment and the next couple of days, I am truly devoted to Summer Bridge. This opportunity is one that I couldn’t afford to pass up. I might not be trying as hard as others but I’m taking this a bit seriously. Just a little bit. Once I see a signal that I have to try harder I will. I will flip the switch and show Summer Bridge who’s boss. #moneyteam #letsgetit
Anyways, this is where I’m at in my life right now. No where else, we unfortunately can’t be in two or more places at once (yet, I’m working on it). One thing we all share is that we are hard working. We wouldn’t be here if we weren’t. Maybe some of us did get lucky (like me) but that doesn’t mean we don’t know how much it takes to reach our goals.
Haven’t been stereotyped yet. I don’t think. Maybe I have I’m just oblivious to it.
Now pretty much starting from the beginning of my life until pretty much the end of it, I have a commitment to my family. In the recent months I hated the fact that I’m the child that has to go out, get a degree, make money, then give it to my parents. Especially after the fact that I don’t feel as close to my family as I should except for my brother.
I’ve always known that I owe it to my parents for being here but I don’t like the idea of it being my responsibility to take care of them. I’m not going to expect my kids to take care of me when I get older because who knows what they want to do. I’m going to do it for my parents though. I’ve had a great life despite the few bumps along the road like that armadillo that one time. They’ve worked too hard to be barely making it. They’re my family, I’ve learned a lot of what not do from them. They’ve provided for me when all odds were against them and I can at least provide them with some relief later in life.
Still oblivious to being stereotyped. That’s not good is it?
Now if there’s something crucial that I learned from my mother is that education is important. She didn’t finish high school which is why she probably made it so important that I learn everything I can. Being in Brownsville Lopez Early College High School, I’ve learned that it isn’t really the best high school to go to. So after some thinking I’ve decided in at some point going back to teach. Math and Science are my subjects which is why I will probably join the Math and Science Teachers of Tomorrow. Makes sense.
Knopf, Alison. “The Power Of Advertising — Teach Your Children To Be Informed Consumers: A Guide For Parents.” Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter 31.(2015): 1-2. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 July 2015.
Alison Knopf is a member of the Association of Health Care journalists. She has written about other topics such as cyber bullying and alcohol and substance abuse. She argues that with the new laws passed in a number of states legalizing marijuana that it is imperative for parents to make an effort in educating their child on the drug. Her claims are that advertising plays a powerful role in consumption of things like tobacco and alcohol and it will play a major role in the consumption of marijuana. Advertising works, which is why parents must educate themselves and their children.
Advertising is powerful. We see and hear commercials for a number of products. Billboards are brought up with the intent to persuade and sell. This is why fast food restaurants like McDonalds and alcohol distributors like Coors are successful. Knopf writes that advertising is what might decide whether your child uses marijuana or not. However, she doesn’t bash on the plant. Instead she argues that there is still action that a parent can take. While there is a mixed message on the use of marijuana, a parent can’t just “[spout] lectures about reefer madness or just say no.” So as a parent you can’t sound like someone who is trying to con them when you speak about the bad surrounding marijuana.
In addition, Knopf can’t dismiss the arguments and claims from the side that is for recreational and medical use of marijuana. As Knopf mentions a few of the arguments she states “[not to] argue that these aren’t facts, because they are, and you’ll lose your teen’s respect on your side.” Instead it is better to use science to show them more of the facts of marijuana use. There is a downside to smoking pot. While it can be medicinal, there isn’t an exact way to prescribe it. It also damages your lungs like cigarettes, “marijuana smoke contains more carcinogenic smoke than tobacco,” Knopf states according to the American Lung association. While there has been claims that it’s better than tobacco, it is actually just as bad if not worse. Knopf also quotes that teen use of marijuana once a week can result in neurocognitive damage. So pot isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Lastly, the role of parents is as powerful as advertising. Parents get to raise their children in any way they want. If they don’t want them to use the drug, Knopf argues that it is smart to have them write a report or do a science fair project. Something that allows them to do the research for themselves instead of hearing it from someone with a different interests. This will let teenagers become educated and smart consumers. The more research they do, the more they will learn and make better decisions.
In conclusion, I found this source useful because it addresses what parents will have to do when it comes to educating their kids about marijuana. Others might find it useful for the same reason and can supplement it into their paper. There is no bias but Knopf takes a stance that is either against the legalization as it sends the wrong message or simply wants people to be smart about what they see on television and consume.