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.  

Powerpoint vs. Essays

Personally, I don't really mind either. It just depends on the topic. If the topic is something I am interested in and I am allowed to throw in my opinion, it is easier for me to write and essay. I like writing when I'm not being forced to write. That's just human nature. I would also like to think that I have a pretty good writing style (when I'm not being rushed or, again, forced to write). I would prefer power-point presentations when the topic is something more facts or when it's something I'm not as interested in because, in my opinion, it doesn't take as much effort to make a powerpoint as it does to write an essay.

Powerpoints are also more for presentations, so if that is the end-result of the assignment, then this would be what I would rather do. Essays, I feel like are more for one person to reflect on while reading it. So if it is for a teacher to grade, obviously an essay would be better suited for that.

Artifact: Environmental History

Here is a link to some environmental history.

Click on "Women's Movement" to learn more about Women's roles in "the nation's environmental movement." 

Click on "Mother of the Forest" to learn more about the history of finding gold in California.

One particularly outstanding woman was Ellen Richards who started the "home ecology" movement which fought for clean kitchens, clean water and clean cites. 

Link to article

Click Here for the link to my peer-reviewed article.

Religion and the Environment

In my opinion, I think religion and the environment can and maybe even should be a joint practice if it means a positive outcome for both. As long as the relationship between religion and the environment is not harmful, I don't think there is a problem. However, the distinction that must be made is that they are separate practices: one involves gods and faith and "believing" while the other is essential to earth. They are two practices that are independent from each other but that doesn't mean that they can't join together.

In the video, I was intrigued by what Mary Evelyn Tucker was saying about needed to take what is written in scriptures and other religious writings but apply it to today and today's problems because they are much different from what they used to be. What was written in the past isn't really relevant to the present which is why people need to take what was written and put it into context that is relevant.

Basically, I think that while they could be intertwined, they are two separate and independent practices that should in the end, remain separate and independent of each other, but there's no reason that they couldn't join together in order to benefit one or the other.

Sh!t Yog!s Say Response

After watching this youtube clip, I'm kind of inspired to make my own Sh!t _______ Say clip. I've seen the Sh!t Girls Say and Sh!t Sorority Girls say and they're all hilarious to me. I think they're funny because they make fun of people who take themselves way too seriously. I think these videos also humble the people they're making fun of because the people who do say these things all think they're unique for saying them. Like in the Sh!t sorority girls say video, one of the "girls" says "I'm not taking another shot." But everyone knows, that doesn't mean anything and everyone knows that sorority girls say that all the time. Also, the "namaste" in Sh!t Yog!s say video is something that all yoga-ers say but they all think they're super special for saying it.