peer reviewed article

on homophobia

http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/25/7/881.full.pdf+html

Response to Indigenous Resistance

In my opinion, I think it was really presumptuous and unjustified for countries to try to get rid of indigenous roots. I believe that it has been extremely costly for cultural and historical purposes because now we know very little about those cultures and there's no way to bring them back. Using schools as a mechanism to weed out the indigenous culture is extremely manipulative. No one should be using children as leverage in any way. Trying to civilize indigenous populations was unjustified. Who is America and who is Britain to say that they can't do what they want to do and live the life they want to live. I know that sounds clicheed, but we wouldn't want some country to completely change our lifestyle and negate everything we've learned growing up. There was no reason for America and Britain to do that to the Aboriginal people in their regions.

Response to reading (p 148-165)

Hi.

One of the things that stuck out most to me in this reading was the first line on page 150 of the first real paragraph under "Writing in the Discipline." The quote was: "one surefire way to infuriate your critics is to call their motives into question." I thought this was such a good quote because critics often times are degrading and, to a point, pretty condescending. Their thoughts usually go unquestioned because they have the label of a "critic." But when the tables are turned, and the critic's motives come into question, they get pissed because they are not accustomed to being questioned. In this reading however, it says that while it is one thing to do things like that in politics (where people "improve" themselves by bringing down someone else), doing that in writing is not considered persuasive because it "entrenches existing disagreements rather than encourage people to work together to solve real-world problems." I agree with this comment. I think that in the political realm, immaturity and stupidity are what people go for but in the real world, solutions come from collaboration and cooperation.

I liked how the Feeding the World article outlined how the essay was written. It makes it easier for me to figure out what it is i need to do for my papers.

Bye.

Response to Fracking

            Fracking is a relatively new way to extract oil and natural gas from the earth. The process involves drilling into rocks to create pathways for the oil and gas that has been retained in the rocks to come out make it easier to extract. This process has created issues for the surrounding areas predominantly by affecting nearby water sources to residents’ homes. This issue has created a heated national debate about whether or not it is fracking itself that is causing this problem. On one side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted studies to determine if it is in fact fracking that is causing these issues. On the other side, the drilling industries are arguing that fracking is a safe practice. What this article addresses is what the impacts of the results of the studies conducted by the EPA and the effects that the findings will have on the future of extraction of natural gases using processes like fracking.

            In Pavillion, Wyoming, residents have complained about the effects of fracking on their drinking water. “Residents complained that their well water turned brown shortly after gas wells were fracked nearby” (Lustgarten, Kusnetz paragraph 9). According to the article, the companies at working during that time provided them with water for a period of time. However, the gas companies cannot provide water for an extended period of time, so providing them with water while operating was only a short-term solution.

            The experiment conducted by the EPA determined that other sources, like abandoned oil and gas waste pits, were the main reason for the pollution of shallow groundwater. However, in their experiment, “EPA investigators drilled two water monitoring wells to 1000 feet” and the pollution occurring in those wells had to have been caused by fracking (Lustgarten, Kusnetz, paragraph 11). The drilling companies were outraged at the accusations claiming that the studies were inconclusive because only a few traces of carcinogens were found in one of three of the samples taken. The drilling companies are probably not the best people to trust, though, because they declined to give federal officials detailed breakdowns of every compound they used in their fracking processes. This makes it seem that they are guilty by omission because if they are not willing to be open about what they use, then it seems that they have something to hide. And if their process truly is safe, then it seems silly to have to hide anything.

            I believe that since our water sources are slowly dwindling, we should not be compromising what little freshwater we do have left. While this process does seem to be a good solution for the dearth of oil and natural gasses dilemma, water is not something to overlook. Human beings cannot survive without a week of water, but our species has survived for thousands of years without using oil and natural gases to power our big screen TVs and Hummer SUVs.