1. )

• Barack Obama wants to create new standards for how America uses energy. "Obama will create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own" (Plan to Strengthen the Economy).
• Hillary Clinton also has a plan to combat global warming: "A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan" (Powering America's Future: New Energy, New Jobs). She also wants us to cut foreign oil imports by 2/3. But she fails to explain how all this is going to help the economy.
• John McCain's campaign website doesn't really outline any specific solutions to the problem pertaining the environment or global warming. The site explains that McCain believes Americans have a responsibility to take care of the environment and "He believes that ignoring the problem reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude unworthy of our great country, and poses a serious and unacceptable threat to our environment, our economy, and U.S. national security. He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share" (Stewards of Our Nations Rich National Heritiage).

2. ) I would have to say that McCain's solutions are the weakest. He fails to give specific examples of what exactly is going to be done and how it is going to help. Hillary and Obama both seem to have really good solutions. I can't say I'm in any position to judge whether or not the solutions could actually work...I guess America just has to trust whoever we elect...

3.) McCain had the most fallacies. He was just repeating slogans and 'miss america talk' instead of providing specific examples. He seemed to be beating around the bush; he was very vague.

4.) I definitely think that Hillary has a lot of great solutions to combat global warming. However, I'd like to ask her how she plans on increasing the amount of stable jobs, if she is going to do anything about retirement (like, have more companies offer retirement plans for workers), and whether or not she thinks her deadlines (2020, 2030, etc) are realistic. COnsidering the fact that it takes 50 years to phase in a new energy source, I don't see how 2020 can be a realistic deadline for "reducing electricity consumption". Where are the other sources of electricity going to come from?

5.) An excellent way to help out is Habitat for Humanity. This organization is huge; they have it in every major city and town. They sponsor so many things, including building homes for the homeless in poor countries. This helps the environment because instead of letting some industrial company buy the land and use it for factories or something else that is detrimental to the environment, volunteers come in and give something back to those in need. They even build energy-efficient houses, which is great.

Pirating MP3's...

Me: Hey everyone! Thanks for joining us today on The Becky Show. How are we all doing? Fabulous. A big controversy up in smoke right now, are you keeping track of what your kids download? All that music on their iPod, did they pay for every song? Well, today we've got Scott Matthews and Fred von Lohman, from The Washington Post, here to talk with us about illegal downloading of music and MP3's.
So, Scott, why don't you give us a little background on what's going on.

Scott: Well, the record industry and EFF are preparing thousands of lawsuits against individuals who have illegally downloaded music. The record industry is losing billions of dollars from all this cost-free file-sharing, so they have a plan to wipe this out completely.

Me: Interesting to hear that. So, if there are millions of people out there doing this, how exactly does the EFF plan on accomplishing this?

Scott: Okay, their plan is to tax internet use, so if one were to download any files "illegally", it wouldn't really be illegal because the tax will allow the governemtn and record companies to be compensated.

Me: So, this whole issue is really just about the fact that the record companies want to be compensated for their losses?

Scott: Yes, exactly.

Me: Interesting. So, they are planning to tax internet use? I'm too sure if that's a realistic solution. But, hey, let's asl another expert. Here we've got Fred von Lohman from the Washington Post. How are you today?

Fred: Doing well, thanks.

Me: So, tell us, what's your opinion on the matter?

Fred: Well, Becky, at its heart, this is a fight about money, not morailty. And the truth of the matter is, no solution seems to work. Subscriptions for unlimited downloads for $10 a month are offered with services like Napster and Rhapsody. But these are failures because music expires after time, files are not compatible with the iPod, and the selection is slim.

Me: Not compatible with the iPod? Well of course no one's going to subscribe. Why download music when you can't even put it on your MP3-player...and everyone has iPods these days.

Fred: Exactly. Apple has also created a legal downloading process with iTunes. But the songs downloaded from iTunes are only cimpatible with Ipods, and it costs $1 per song and sometimes when you purchase a song, it has an error while downloading...but it still takes your money. How can you be sure you'll get a refund when everything is done electronically?

Me: It seems very tricky.

Fred: it is. Kids want music, they hear it on TV or the radio or whatever. They want the easiest way to get it. They also want to share their music and musical taste with friends, what better or easier way to do that than file-sharing.

Me: So, Fred, do you suggest any other solutions?

Fred: Yes, The only solution is a blanket license that permits kids to get unrestricted music and movies from sources of their choosing. We should have schools and universities collect cash, pay it to the entertainment industry and let the kids do what they are going to do anyway. In exchange, the entertainment industry should call off the lawyers and lobbyists, leaving our nation's universities to focus on the real challenges facing America's next generation of leaders.

This is Rediculous

1. I don't think students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, personally, because I don't trust college kids with guns. I agree with the whole "substance abuse" issue because it's something that concerns me the most. If you think about how many out-of-control parties there are in college, and add guns to that equation, the result is not something pretty.

2. I'm not entirely sure. I don't think guns should be allowed at all. And if there were 'criteria'...what would those criteria be? How the hell can you judge a person to see if they're capable of carrying a gun and only using it for their personal portection? The definition of 'self-defense' is different for every person.

3. CNN stated that some students began carrying concealed weapons after the incident at VA Tech. I guess that means students want a gun in case some crazy student pulls a gun on them. That seems to me to be the strongest reason to carry a concealed weapon. On the other hand, though, I think that's also the weakest reason. Because, honestly, there's no guarantee that you can protect yourself from someone who's pointing a gun at you just because you've got one yourself. What if you can't pull it out in time? A gunshot fires in a split-second...that's not much time for "self-defense", if you ask me.

4. On News Net, an article titled Students Protest Concealed-weapon Law explained that not everyone at Utah University is in support of the bill that may be passed to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus: "President of Students Against Violence, Ryan Keller, 22, a junior from Salt Lake City majoring in philosophy, said that he and others are just trying to make the government represent what the people want." There are many groups collecting signatures that will be sent to the Mayor in hopes that he will veto the bill. Keller also said, "If you have a gun in your sight, you always have the ability to kill someone else in an instant, so I assume that someone sitting next to me will always act rationally, but in a sense my life is in his hands and every person that is around me." (Students Protest).
[http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/20/cnnu.guns/index.html#cnnSTCText]
I think he makes a valid point: how are we supposed to trust everyone? Why would we want to put our lives in the hands of someone else - someone we don't even know?

5. I don't think ANYONE should be allowed to carry a gun except trained proffesionals.

6. A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment states: "Before addressing the body of Second Amendment scholarship, it is worth taking a moment to put it into the context of the popular debate over gun controls and the right to bear arms. Although it would be something of an oversimplification, it is probably fair to say that those who support gun control have generally tended either to ignore the Second Amendment entirely or to adopt an interpretation that leaves it essentially without effect. Those opposed to gun control, on the other hand, have naturally tended to adopt rather strong interpretations of the Second Amendment."
[http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html]
I agree with this, and in my opinion, the second amendment was meant only for trained professionals. But, then again, I support gun control, so my opinion is going to be bias. I just don't think anyone in Utah - as long as they are 21, have no criminal record, and are "mentally stable" - should be able to carry a gun. What does "mentally stable" even mean? How can you be sure if a person is mentally stable?

7. No, I don't think the second amendment is sufficient, mainly due to the fact that giving someone a gun gives them too much power, too much control. Well, if, according to the second amendment, "people" have the "right to bear arms", everyone should carry a gun, right? I mean, if I have to put my trust in someone I don't know just because the government says they're capable, or trustworthy...that's not fair to me. And, what about accidents? I know guns don't kill people, people kill people...but guns help and otherwise ill-equipped person to kill another person, whether that be on accident or on purpose. I don't think the answer to the problem of violence is...more violence.

My CD

Songs from the album Genuinely Nineteen:

1. Free Me
- soft rock
- this song is about imprisonment of the poor, helpless animals that are trapped in cages in factory farms across the US. These animals can feel pain, just like humans, and we should understand that there's no need to torture an animal just because "it's going to end up dead anyways".

2. Gone
- soft rock
- this song tells two individual stories, one about a girl, one about a boy, who both ran away from home. They each have their own reasons for leaving home, their school, their friends, never to return again. But the song is meant to reflect on the large number of children that are homeless and dig deeper to see why that number really is so high. Most kids "run away" at some point or another during their childhood, but the ones that never come back...well, there's usually a reason for that.

3. The American Dream
- soft rock
- "Welcome to the 21st-century: the American Dream". This song pokes fun at America, and everything it has become. We try to portray America as a place where dreams come true, but with so many people without health insurance, the over-population, polution, corruption, and crime-rates...America isn't really something I'd like to dream about. Would you?

4. Hollywood
- soft rock
- This song is about a girl who wants nothing more than to be famous, drive a bright red car, get that second glance. Sure, everyone wants to be famous, but why? What can really make the human heart happy? Is it how many "things" we have or how popular we are? Or is it what we do that defines us as people and, more importantly, that what we're doing is ethical and noble. Does being a famous singer really help anyone? What about joining the Peace-Corps, where no one knows who you are or even speaks your native language?

5. Automoton
- punk rock
- This song is written from a teenager's perspective. Sometimes we (teenagers) feel like we are living someone else's life - or living our lives for someone else. It's almost as if we are programmed: wake up, go to school, do homework, repeat. If I want to leave home when I'm 16 to go join a band and follow my dreams, why can't I? If I would rather take 7 hours of ballet 5 days-a-week, why can't I quit school and become a dancer? Why do we always just do what we're told? What about the things that WE want?

6. Better Half
- soft rock
- A story about a man who loves his wife, his soul-mate, his life partner, this song explores the mysteries of the human heart. Do humans truly "mate" for life? This song proves that some can.

7. Here With Me
- soft rock
- This is a song about death. It's hard to believe that emotional problems can take hold of a person's life and even harder to believe that emotional pain can suddenly turn into physical pain, but all of this can happen. And it does. The concept of loss is a complicated one, and this song tells about the pain of losing a loved one and the phases of greif, all ending in acceptance.

8. A Day at the Beach
- soft rock
- This song is mainly about stress, caused by anything in our hechtic daily lives. Most of us are too busy and in over our heads when all we really need to do is take life one day at a time, stop and soak up the sunshine or feel the breeze, enjoy the simple pleasures in life.

Lyrics: A Day at the Beach

I say life is like a day at the beach (day at the beach)
Plenty of sun, and warm sand (and warm sand)
Test the water before you jump in (you jump in)
The land strip of life can be so long (be so long)

Chorus:
And even though the sound of the ocean breeze
It turns you on
Sand gets in your eyes, it's hard to see.
The waves crash over
You fight for air, you fight to breathe.
You're in over your head too deep.

Album Cover:
My album, which is titled Genuinely Nineteen, would be a streaky grey background where you can just make out old buildings, leaf-less trees, streets, etc. Everything looks the same. You can also see bold black figures walking along the streets; each figure is facing a different direction and everyone looks disoriented. This image symbolyzes the age 19, and the fact that this is the time when we feel like we don't really know who we are, and we are all just trying to discover ourselves, our purpose, and what truly excites us in this world of monotony.
Obviously, the text for the title of the album would be in bold red, so it would stand out against all the blacks and greys. This is to signify that music is my passion, what truly excites me, and that this album is something extraordinary.

"Running On Faith"

1. My initial reaction is that I am shocked that they would disqualify her, essentially, because of her religion. I think it's rediculous. That is why we have freedom of religion in the USA, and I don't see how the hood was giving her any unfair advantages over her competetors either.

2. I agree that kelly's disqualification constitiutes religious descrimination, and the discualification of other athletes for other reasons do not apply. Most athletes are disqualified because of steroids or something that gives them an unfair advantage. In Kelly's case, this is not so.

3. Well, I'd need to look up all the specific rules of the track league concerning appropriate competing attire and also different aspects of the Muslim faith.

4. I'm sure Roger had more reasons behind his opinion (or to back up his opinion) in his actual article, which I'm sure was pretty long. I can see where he's coming from; sports do have certain rules that probably are not meant to discriminate. But it's not right to deny someone the right to participate because they cannot dress properly due to their religious beliefs.

5. The only solution I can see is to re-do the rule book because I don't agree with this particular rule.

6. Well, yes and no. The judges have the capability of hiring more judges for more opinions (two sets of eyes are better than one), and they could even hire a film crew to tape the results. I don't think that the solid color rule, solely implemented for the purpose of telling who won the race, is the best it could be. I think the judges could do better and amend that rule.

Hooking The Audience

Image #1: Key and Fork
Title: Bias Simplicity: What the Humane Society is Really Trying to Say
Where: Washington Post Editorial Section
Tone: satirical/ironic/attacking the fallacies of the ad

When you first open up the webpage for the Humane Society, there is a large picture of two dogs - a black labrador and a yellow labrador - romping around in a field of buttercups. The caption reads: "Celebrating animals, confronting cruelty."
Now, looking at the ad speaking out against global warming, I notice that the ad is endorsed by the Humane Society. Now, I can't help but wonder if the ad is really about global warming at all. In fact, according to Environmentaldefense.org, U.S. autos emit more than 333 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, more than one-fifth of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions." So if cars contribute more than one fifth of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions, what contributes to the other four fifths? Well, the Mairan Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences at koshland-science-museum.org says "industry, residential, commercial, and agriculture." However, with a closer look at the website, it ranks these causes of global warming in order from most imoact to least impact - I am not surprised that industry is listed first and agriculture, last. It is clear that the 'fork and key' ad is using global warming as a cover-up. The Humane Society is just trying to hook yet another audience. They've already got animal-lovers on their side, now they want the global warming activists.


Image #2: The Earth's Greenhouse Effect
Title: The Science Behind Global Warming
Where: Vanity Fair (front page, of course!)
Tone: scholarly/logo-driven/trying to prove a point/convince an audience

When you hear the words: global warming, I'm sure you think of just that: the earth becoming hotter. But how, exactly, does that happen? Well, there's a whole science behind the so-called theory of global warming, so I suggest you start believing.
The greenhouse effect. Yes, it sounds like a rather silly name for something that seems so complex. But that's just it, the concept of global warming is really not that complicated at all. Basically, before there were 6.6 billion people on this planet, before there could be any life on this planet, certain things were needed. And among oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen was the right temperature. Venus and Mercury are too hot for life - similarly, Saturn or Neptune are too cold for life. But Earth, Earth was just right. The Earth had developed a natural process of warming. Carbon dioxide and other gases, like the ones I mentioned a moment ago, are always present in the atmosphere. These gases allowed for a warming effect that can be compared to that of a greenhouse. The sun brings heat into the atmosphere, most of which is absorbed by land or water. Some of the rest stays in the atmosphere and some goes back out into space.
What's happening now, with global warming, is more of an amplified greenhouse effect. Humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (or gases that were always there naturally) in the atmosphere, so more heat than before is able to be trapped by these gases, remain within the atmosphere, and thus warming the Earth.

Image # 3: Shark Lunch
Title: Impact of Change and Sea Level Rise
Where: Time Magazine or pamphlets being passed out at an environmental event
Tone: scholarly/logos-driven/trying to convince an audience

This comic may have made you laugh, but let's face it, the effects of global warming are no laughing matter. Among the obvious rise in temperature, increase in tropical storms and pollution, global warming is also starting to amplify its effects in the oceans and underwater communities. Seven tenths of the Earth's surface is covered in water, so it makes sense that the oceans house the majority of animal life. Think about the coral reefs; those are places that have some of the highest biodiversity in the world. To scientists, these are like gold mines.
But, due to global warming, more and more marine species are becoming closer and closer and closer to extinction. Many fish and marine mammals require certain key environmental factors in order to live. Polar bears, for example, have thick fur to keep them warm, they thrive in the icy climates of the North and South Poles, and they feed on sea lions. With the oceans temperatures changing, sea lions are migrating and ice caps are melting. The polar bear poluation is at risk.
What's even worse, every species on this planet is tied together in an aintricate web of producers and consumers. The whole process of life will be disrupted if one species is removed. Think of it as a domino effect: if one falls, the rest will soon follow.
According to conservation.org, global warming is not the only impact humans are making on Earth's oceans: "The amount of marine life we extract to feed ourselves is astronomical, and some of our fishing methods – dynamite fishing, bottom trawling, cyanide fishing, and other techniques – cause great damage to current and future fish stocks and to the underwater world in which they thrive. Today, 90 percent of the oceans’ top predators are gone. Entire populations of fish, and the communities and economies they support, have collapsed. Seafloors look like war zones. Corals have been bleached white from chemical runoff. Dead zones – vast swaths of ocean that can no longer support life – are spreading throughout the marine realm."
We really can make a difference, as long as we understand what we are doing wrong and take the initiative to fix the problems we've caused.

Toyota Prius

1. Dear Mom and Dad,
As you both know, global warming is looming upon us and gas prices are rising. And that's not it; according to NPR, "gas prices climb as summer driving season nears" (2006). Mom, I know you listen to NPR a lot on your way to work. Summer is on its way, and everyone will be paying more for gas. Gas prices rise during the summer because more kids - teenagers like me - are out of school and joy-riding during all the free time they have, families are traveling thousands of miles in cars and airplanes to go on vacation, it's no wonder gas prices would be much higher than they are during the winter months.
I propose a very simple solution to this: a Toyota Prius. If you visit the Toyota website, and check out all the Prius options, you'll find that it gets an average gas mileage of 46 miles per gallon! I think that's amazing. With my Nissan, right now, I get somewhere between 25 and 28 mpg - it costs me $30 to fill up my tank completely. But with a Prius, it would probably only cost me half of that! Let's put it into perspective:
With my Nissan, $30 per week on gas means $120 per month (assuming 4 weeks in a month) and $1,440 each year on just gas. Now, for a nineteen-year-old, that's a lot of money! However. with a Prius, sayit only costs me $15 per week, $60 per month, and ultimately $720 each year. That's a savings of over $700 - I'll save 50% on gas.
In my opinion, it's totally worth it.

II.
Dear Becky,
I'm sorry, but we are not going to get you a Toyota Prius. We understand that you are spending nearly $1,500 on gas every year. But your car only cost $3,000 when we bought it and it will surely last you another 5 years if you treat it well. During those 5 years, you will spend $7,500 on gas, roughly. We understand that it's a lot of money. But Hybrid cars are new vehicles. They are new technology. It is difficult to find one more than a few years old. That being said, a brand new Toyota Prius costs as much as $22,000 (www.toyota.com). It's really not worth it, in terms of money. You will graduate in 3 years, and if you decide you want to go out and spend twenty grand on a new Hybrid, you can do that. In the mean time, just stick to your Nissan.

III.
Mom and Dad,
I understand that you feel it is not worth it. But it really is! Yes, it's true that my Nissan - with 136, 000 miles on it - will probably only last another 5 years. But, if you buy the brand new Toyota Prius - with 0 miles on it - it will last for 15 or 20 years. If we bought a new Nissan for three grand every five years for the next fifteen years and spent $22,000 on gas during those 15 years, that's a total of $31,000 spend over the course of 15 years. I think it evens out.
If you agree to buy this Toyota Prius, I will save my money and agree to chip in $6,000 and you can pay the rest. How does that sound?