For essay 2, I used exploratory essay format to talk about the controversy that is the current BCS bowl game format in college football. I described the BCS system to the reader, showing its strengths and weaknesses, then began to describe the controversy that has risen from it. I listed ways it could be changed and who has proposed them. Lastly, I added in personal voice and why it is important to me.
The biggest thing I heard from Ms. Sowa and my peers is that I delayed inserting my question until too late in the paper. I don’t really get to my question until page 5. I also spend too much time writing an argument essay instead of an exploratory one. Looking back over my essay, I agree with this. I wasn’t completely sure what an exploratory essay style meant at the time, but now it is clearer to me. Another problem that I had was that I focused on my viewpoints too much, and not the opposing viewpoints. There wasn’t enough “they say, I say” in the paper. I need to ask more questions about the situation and add in how the research and evidence I found made me question my own personal beliefs on the subject.
For my revision, I will be making all the changes that were suggested to me. I am going to bring my question up closer to the beginning of the story so it is in the reader’s mind sooner, as they begin reading my evidence instead of after they have read all of it. I’m also going to add more exploratory into the essay, using more questions and personal voice to accomplish this. Next, I am going to add more counter-arguments and talk about how they complicated my own thoughts on the topic. I think making these changes will substantially improve me essay and make it much easier for the reader to follow.
As far as stylistic and proof-reading changes, I like my sentence structure and organization a lot. I just need to make it more exploratory as a far as style is concerned, as well as adding more of my personal voice. Since I do play college football, I could really play that up in the essay to show why this topic is so important to me.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Revision Memo 1
In Essay 1, I went into great detail describing the last time my friends and I spent time together before we all went off to college. It was our tradition for the last few years to gather in my basement, order pizza, and watch the UFC fights together. The paper covers from the beginning of the night all the way up to the end, highlighting the significance of the event and our friendship. I spent a lot of time focusing on the significance of how this was the last time we were going to be hanging out for a long time and how that moment was almost a setting off point into the rest of our lives.
Overall, the comments I got from Ms. Sowa and my peers were that I spent too much time focusing on “we” instead of “I.” The assignment calls for a personal narrative, but I was looking at it too much through the “we.” I didn’t add in enough of my personal experience such as my personal feelings or memories. People suggested that I add in my feelings and my anxieties and worries about heading off to college. Looking back over my paper, I agree with what people suggested to me. I feel like I did focus on the “we” too much since it was supposed to be a personal narrative.
For my revision, I will rework my essay to make my focus more personal. I will change some of the parts of the story where I focus on “we” and add in more “I.” I vividly remember how I was feeling that night and what worries I had leaving my friends and I will add those in during my revision. These changes will bring the “so what” more clearly to the reader and also make the story more universal. Everyone remembers hanging out with their friends for the last time and how they felt before they headed off to college and by me adding more of my personal thoughts and feelings into the story, I help the reader connect better with my essay.
For the sentence-level and proofreading, I just need to make sure that throughout the paper I am using “I” and not “we.” I also need to make sure that I don’t go from past tense to present tense, a mistake I made before. Other than that, I like my current sentence structure and how it works with my paper.
Overall, the comments I got from Ms. Sowa and my peers were that I spent too much time focusing on “we” instead of “I.” The assignment calls for a personal narrative, but I was looking at it too much through the “we.” I didn’t add in enough of my personal experience such as my personal feelings or memories. People suggested that I add in my feelings and my anxieties and worries about heading off to college. Looking back over my paper, I agree with what people suggested to me. I feel like I did focus on the “we” too much since it was supposed to be a personal narrative.
For my revision, I will rework my essay to make my focus more personal. I will change some of the parts of the story where I focus on “we” and add in more “I.” I vividly remember how I was feeling that night and what worries I had leaving my friends and I will add those in during my revision. These changes will bring the “so what” more clearly to the reader and also make the story more universal. Everyone remembers hanging out with their friends for the last time and how they felt before they headed off to college and by me adding more of my personal thoughts and feelings into the story, I help the reader connect better with my essay.
For the sentence-level and proofreading, I just need to make sure that throughout the paper I am using “I” and not “we.” I also need to make sure that I don’t go from past tense to present tense, a mistake I made before. Other than that, I like my current sentence structure and how it works with my paper.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Argument Essay First Draft
INSERT VOTING QUOTE Every four years in the United States of America, we have a Presidential Election. And every four years, barely 50% of the register votes turn out to vote. That percentage is even lower, around 30-40% for off year elections. On a list of voter turnout by country compiled by International IDEA, the United States ranks 139th out of 172 countries, sandwiched between Armenia, Uganda, Nigeria, and Thailand. Why is voter turnout in the United States so low? How could the percentage of Americans who vote be improved?
Looking at the voter turnout from other nations, we see that they must have the answer. For example, in France’s 2007 Presidential election, they had 84% turnout. Italy has a national average of 92.5%, Australia has an average of 95%, Germany an average of 80%, and England and Korea with 75%. Do these nations have different voting laws or techniques? Or are their citizens just more passionate about their nations’ government?
First, let’s look at Australia with its 95% voter turnout. Unlike our country, Australia has compulsory voting, meaning that it is punishable by law if you do not vote. There are nearly 30 nations in the world with these laws in place, including Mexico, Brazil, Belgium, and Argentina, but Australia and Boliva are the strictest at enforcing these laws. For example, if a Bolivian citizen doesn’t vote, the government denies that citizens ability to withdraw their paycheck from the bank for up to 3 months.
Although compulsory voting would does have a positive effect on voter turnout, some people question whether it’s the right approach. Opponents claim that forcing people to vote in a democracy isn’t true freedom. They argue that true freedom would include the right to choose not to vote. Opponents also argue that there would be a large number of random votes cast by people who don’t have any interest in who wins the election and wouldn’t have voted if it wasn’t required.
However, the benefits of compulsory voting outweigh the negatives. First, elected governments are considered more legitimate when higher proportions of the population vote. With 50% voter turnout, how legitimate is the victory of an elected official? What would’ve happened if the other 50% percent would’ve voted? Second, political parties wouldn’t need to spend valuable resources trying to convince possible voters to actually vote, leaving more resources available to talk about the issues. In an op-ed piece by the New York Times a few weeks ago, they point out that over $5 billion had been spent on this year’s Presidential and Congressional elections simply trying to convince people to cast a ballot. With our current economic state and national debt, couldn’t that $5 billion be spent somewhere else? Lastly, a true democracy is a government by the people, not half of the people.
Another solution to the problem is making Election Day a national holiday or putting it on the weekend. President elect Obama brought this up towards the end of his campaign. Many people have too many things going on or just can’t get out of work to go vote on a Tuesday. Nearly 30 states have laws in place that allow people time off from work to go vote, but these laws are vastly unknown to employees and bosses. Recently, nine states made Election Day a national holiday. INSERT STATE VOTER TURNOUT Puerto Rico is an excellent. Election Day in Puerto Rico is a national holiday, and voter turnout is 82.6%.
As early as last summer, the English Parliament was debating whether or not to move their elections from Thursday to the weekend. Whichever of those two options we choose, there are no negatives. It would cost very little money and the increase in voter turnout would be worth the money.
Another technique used by other countries is automatic voter registration. Unlike the United States where the responsibility is on the individual to register to vote, other nations’ put that responsibility on the government, who automatically register their citizens to vote. Many Americans don’t vote because it’s too much of a hassle to go register. Automatic registration would eliminate this excuse. One idea that is being proposed here in the United States is making voter registration a requirement to graduate. Due to all the information that school districts already have on their students, such as their home address, social security number, etc., it would be very easy to implement a system like this.
If people oppose this system, we need look no further than our neighbors to the North. Canada has a very successful automatic voter registration system in place which places the entire responsibility of voter registration on the government. Through interaction with various government agencies, Election Canada, a non-partisan government entity which is in charge of overseeing and regulating all government elections, compiles a list of all citizens who are old enough to vote and registers them. Information can be easily gathered on a person for registration through cooperation with the different Canadian government agencies. However, like all government systems, there are occasional flaws. Sometimes a person will slip through the cracks and go unregistered. In this scenario, the government is already prepared with voter registration available on the day of elections. Finland and Denmark also have automatic government registration, with Denmark having 84% compared to Finland’s 79%. However, Canada’s voter turnout is around 68%, showing that automatic voter registration isn’t the perfect answer.
One method that is already being put in place, but could be expanded further, is early voting. 34 states in the US now allow early voting, 31 of them require no-excuse with 3 requiring an excuse. Depending on the state, early voting allows people to vote in a certain time-frame before the election either in person or via absentee ballot. The idea behind it is that it makes voting more convenient for a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to go vote on the Tuesday Election Day. In the 2004 election, nearly 30% of registered voters in Texas, or 2.4 million, participated in the state’s early voting and that number is projected to be much higher for this election. Despite the increased convenience and other advantages of early voting, it has not increased voter turnout. According to Science Daily, “a new empirical study by political scientists concludes that most early voting options have a negligible or even negative impact on turnout.”
Lastly, we must find ways to make politics important to the average American. Most Americans are too self-interested to get involved in politics. We choose to live out our lives and only care about things that effect us, and then we complain about what the government is doing. CNN Writer John Dean brings up an excellent quote from Alexis de Tocqueville’s book “Democracy in America” when he says,
“it is difficult to force a man out of himself and get him to take an interest in the affairs of the whole state, for he has little understanding of the way in which the fate of the state can influence his own lot. But if it is a question of taking a road past his property, he sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest."
There are many reasons that people don’t vote besides disinterest, including distrust of politicians and overall dislike for our current political system. Usually all these reasons are compounded, but there are ways to fix it. Parents and schools can begin educating children at an early ago on the importance of the political system and how we have a civic obligation to vote. People need to understand that when they don’t vote, they lose their political voice. This country was built on the fundamentals that voting and participation in government is important and necessary to the success of our nation. I agree that our government and both political parties are not perfect. But we can fix all of it if everyone gets involved.
There are many different thoughts and ideas on how to improve voter turnout, from compulsory voting to universal voter registration. Whether you agree or disagree with these ideas, the fact remains that something must be done. America, as the world power, cannot keep that status with half our population uninterested and uninvolved in our government. That exact formula has led to the collapse of powerful nations in history, such as Greece and Rome. Let’s learn from history. Not repeat it.
Looking at the voter turnout from other nations, we see that they must have the answer. For example, in France’s 2007 Presidential election, they had 84% turnout. Italy has a national average of 92.5%, Australia has an average of 95%, Germany an average of 80%, and England and Korea with 75%. Do these nations have different voting laws or techniques? Or are their citizens just more passionate about their nations’ government?
First, let’s look at Australia with its 95% voter turnout. Unlike our country, Australia has compulsory voting, meaning that it is punishable by law if you do not vote. There are nearly 30 nations in the world with these laws in place, including Mexico, Brazil, Belgium, and Argentina, but Australia and Boliva are the strictest at enforcing these laws. For example, if a Bolivian citizen doesn’t vote, the government denies that citizens ability to withdraw their paycheck from the bank for up to 3 months.
Although compulsory voting would does have a positive effect on voter turnout, some people question whether it’s the right approach. Opponents claim that forcing people to vote in a democracy isn’t true freedom. They argue that true freedom would include the right to choose not to vote. Opponents also argue that there would be a large number of random votes cast by people who don’t have any interest in who wins the election and wouldn’t have voted if it wasn’t required.
However, the benefits of compulsory voting outweigh the negatives. First, elected governments are considered more legitimate when higher proportions of the population vote. With 50% voter turnout, how legitimate is the victory of an elected official? What would’ve happened if the other 50% percent would’ve voted? Second, political parties wouldn’t need to spend valuable resources trying to convince possible voters to actually vote, leaving more resources available to talk about the issues. In an op-ed piece by the New York Times a few weeks ago, they point out that over $5 billion had been spent on this year’s Presidential and Congressional elections simply trying to convince people to cast a ballot. With our current economic state and national debt, couldn’t that $5 billion be spent somewhere else? Lastly, a true democracy is a government by the people, not half of the people.
Another solution to the problem is making Election Day a national holiday or putting it on the weekend. President elect Obama brought this up towards the end of his campaign. Many people have too many things going on or just can’t get out of work to go vote on a Tuesday. Nearly 30 states have laws in place that allow people time off from work to go vote, but these laws are vastly unknown to employees and bosses. Recently, nine states made Election Day a national holiday. INSERT STATE VOTER TURNOUT Puerto Rico is an excellent. Election Day in Puerto Rico is a national holiday, and voter turnout is 82.6%.
As early as last summer, the English Parliament was debating whether or not to move their elections from Thursday to the weekend. Whichever of those two options we choose, there are no negatives. It would cost very little money and the increase in voter turnout would be worth the money.
Another technique used by other countries is automatic voter registration. Unlike the United States where the responsibility is on the individual to register to vote, other nations’ put that responsibility on the government, who automatically register their citizens to vote. Many Americans don’t vote because it’s too much of a hassle to go register. Automatic registration would eliminate this excuse. One idea that is being proposed here in the United States is making voter registration a requirement to graduate. Due to all the information that school districts already have on their students, such as their home address, social security number, etc., it would be very easy to implement a system like this.
If people oppose this system, we need look no further than our neighbors to the North. Canada has a very successful automatic voter registration system in place which places the entire responsibility of voter registration on the government. Through interaction with various government agencies, Election Canada, a non-partisan government entity which is in charge of overseeing and regulating all government elections, compiles a list of all citizens who are old enough to vote and registers them. Information can be easily gathered on a person for registration through cooperation with the different Canadian government agencies. However, like all government systems, there are occasional flaws. Sometimes a person will slip through the cracks and go unregistered. In this scenario, the government is already prepared with voter registration available on the day of elections. Finland and Denmark also have automatic government registration, with Denmark having 84% compared to Finland’s 79%. However, Canada’s voter turnout is around 68%, showing that automatic voter registration isn’t the perfect answer.
One method that is already being put in place, but could be expanded further, is early voting. 34 states in the US now allow early voting, 31 of them require no-excuse with 3 requiring an excuse. Depending on the state, early voting allows people to vote in a certain time-frame before the election either in person or via absentee ballot. The idea behind it is that it makes voting more convenient for a lot of people who wouldn’t be able to go vote on the Tuesday Election Day. In the 2004 election, nearly 30% of registered voters in Texas, or 2.4 million, participated in the state’s early voting and that number is projected to be much higher for this election. Despite the increased convenience and other advantages of early voting, it has not increased voter turnout. According to Science Daily, “a new empirical study by political scientists concludes that most early voting options have a negligible or even negative impact on turnout.”
Lastly, we must find ways to make politics important to the average American. Most Americans are too self-interested to get involved in politics. We choose to live out our lives and only care about things that effect us, and then we complain about what the government is doing. CNN Writer John Dean brings up an excellent quote from Alexis de Tocqueville’s book “Democracy in America” when he says,
“it is difficult to force a man out of himself and get him to take an interest in the affairs of the whole state, for he has little understanding of the way in which the fate of the state can influence his own lot. But if it is a question of taking a road past his property, he sees at once that this small public matter has a bearing on his greatest private interests, and there is no need to point out to him the close connection between his private profit and the general interest."
There are many reasons that people don’t vote besides disinterest, including distrust of politicians and overall dislike for our current political system. Usually all these reasons are compounded, but there are ways to fix it. Parents and schools can begin educating children at an early ago on the importance of the political system and how we have a civic obligation to vote. People need to understand that when they don’t vote, they lose their political voice. This country was built on the fundamentals that voting and participation in government is important and necessary to the success of our nation. I agree that our government and both political parties are not perfect. But we can fix all of it if everyone gets involved.
There are many different thoughts and ideas on how to improve voter turnout, from compulsory voting to universal voter registration. Whether you agree or disagree with these ideas, the fact remains that something must be done. America, as the world power, cannot keep that status with half our population uninterested and uninvolved in our government. That exact formula has led to the collapse of powerful nations in history, such as Greece and Rome. Let’s learn from history. Not repeat it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Reading Response 4
In Is Privacy Overrated, by Katherine Mangu-Ward, the author is talking about the levels of privacy that we currently have in our daily lives. The central claim is that we already live lives of very little privacy and that we are comfortable with that. Mangu-Ward points out many different things that we do everyday that allow us to be tracked or videotaped, yet we still do them.
The research that Mangu-Ward provided in her essay was all very beneficial to her argument. Her first example of primary research comes in the first paragraph of her essay. She refers to a New York Civil Liberties Union report when she states that there are more than 4,200 security cameras below 14th Street. This is setting up some of the other points that she’s going to make. She is using this piece of research to prove her point that we already live out our lives in front of cameras.
From the research that she used, she brings out excellent evidence to support her argument. The example from the first paragraph is an excellent example, but there are others. In the top paragraph on page 12, she shows how easy it to track us during the day using common electronic devices such as our metro pass, credit card, EZ Pass lane, or the GPS on our cell phones. Another example of evidence she uses is the interview with an NYPD policeman, “A special NYPD unit was assigned to film the police officers as they demonstrated. ‘That’s Big Brother watching you’” (Mangu-Ward 13). This adds to her argument by tying in an interview with someone who has personal experience in her topic.
This article did not really influence me because I already agreed with what it was saying. I agree that our privacy is overrated and people can follow us around all day if they so choose, but I’m not worried about that because I’m not doing anything wrong. With increased surveillance on us comes increased surveillance on those who are watching us to make sure they don’t take advantage of their power. My values played a strong role in how I read this. Since I agreed with what the author was saying, I was more open and took in what they were saying more easily.
In Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, Elizabeth E. Joh discusses how the law has not caught up with technology in the field of DNA collection. The central claim in this essay is that the police and the government now have the technology to collect anyone’s DNA without them knowing about it and the law currently doesn’t stop them. Joh is pointing out all the dangers of this to the readers.
Similar to the Mangu-Ward essay, Joh focuses primarily on using primary research, citing a lot of research studies, scientific analysis, and examples from the real world that help her case, such as the case of Adolph Laudenburg (Joh 31) where Los Angeles police took his DNA from a cup. The research that she provided was excellent in helping her essay and showed that she knew that she was talking about. The evidence that she tied in was very helpful as well. The examples of criminal cases solved by abandoned DNA were great evidence.
There were some aspects of this paper that influenced me, but the message of the essay as a whole didn’t influence me. I believe that the police should use whatever techniques necessary to catch criminals. I don’t care if they have my DNA because I’m not going to be perpetrating any crimes. The only way I was influenced was that now I agree that there should be at least some regulation on this practice. My values and beliefs disagree with a lot of what Joh was saying, so I found myself constantly picking apart what she was saying and disagreeing with it.
In The Cast for National DNA Identification Cards, Ben Quarmby is pointing out the reasons that a national identification card is needed now more than ever with the threat of terrorism looming over our nation. He talks about how we need to regulate who is our country and that a DNA ID card would make it much easier to do that. It would also be much easier to figure out who committed crimes.
Like the first two essays, Quarmby focuses on primary research in his essay. The research and evidence he provides are all very helpful to his argument. The only real research or evidence that he provides is the quote from Alan Dershowitz, “near foolproof system of identification using fingerprints, or for even greater accuracy, DNA information” (Quarmby 38). Quarmby does a good job pointing out that Dershowitz is known for his liberal stance, which makes it more surprising that he supports a national DNA card system.
I wasn’t influenced by this essay very much because I already agreed with what the author was saying. Some of the points he made gave me more reasons to agree with him. I’d say that my prior beliefs really effected how I read this essay because I was more open to accepting what the author was saying.
In Putting a Price on Nature, Drenner is discussing the dangers of drilling in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge. He takes a very liberal stance on all the issues, primarily focusing on saving the wildlife and making it sound like drilling for oil will be the end of the world. He does use good points to back up this argument though.
Similar to the other essays, Drenner uses primary research in his essay. He does a great job of incorporating his research and evidence to support his essay. He even includes some of the points that his opposition makes, but is quick to shoot those down with his own counterpoints. That is the best part of this essay. He includes the opposition arguments, so his paper isn’t completely bias, and then brings out his counterargument. In the end, he’s leaving a lot of the decision up to the reader by presenting both sides.
I was influenced a little by this essay because I do care about the earth, but I also care about our economy and oil. I agree that wildlife should be preserved as best as possible, but there are methods that we could use to get that oil that would effect a very small portion of the wildlife. My values, once again, greatly effected how I read this. As soon as I saw that he was against drilling in ANWR, my brain turned off and I stopped listening to what he was saying. I had to make myself keep reading and stay as open as possible so I could get what he was saying.
The research that Mangu-Ward provided in her essay was all very beneficial to her argument. Her first example of primary research comes in the first paragraph of her essay. She refers to a New York Civil Liberties Union report when she states that there are more than 4,200 security cameras below 14th Street. This is setting up some of the other points that she’s going to make. She is using this piece of research to prove her point that we already live out our lives in front of cameras.
From the research that she used, she brings out excellent evidence to support her argument. The example from the first paragraph is an excellent example, but there are others. In the top paragraph on page 12, she shows how easy it to track us during the day using common electronic devices such as our metro pass, credit card, EZ Pass lane, or the GPS on our cell phones. Another example of evidence she uses is the interview with an NYPD policeman, “A special NYPD unit was assigned to film the police officers as they demonstrated. ‘That’s Big Brother watching you’” (Mangu-Ward 13). This adds to her argument by tying in an interview with someone who has personal experience in her topic.
This article did not really influence me because I already agreed with what it was saying. I agree that our privacy is overrated and people can follow us around all day if they so choose, but I’m not worried about that because I’m not doing anything wrong. With increased surveillance on us comes increased surveillance on those who are watching us to make sure they don’t take advantage of their power. My values played a strong role in how I read this. Since I agreed with what the author was saying, I was more open and took in what they were saying more easily.
In Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, Elizabeth E. Joh discusses how the law has not caught up with technology in the field of DNA collection. The central claim in this essay is that the police and the government now have the technology to collect anyone’s DNA without them knowing about it and the law currently doesn’t stop them. Joh is pointing out all the dangers of this to the readers.
Similar to the Mangu-Ward essay, Joh focuses primarily on using primary research, citing a lot of research studies, scientific analysis, and examples from the real world that help her case, such as the case of Adolph Laudenburg (Joh 31) where Los Angeles police took his DNA from a cup. The research that she provided was excellent in helping her essay and showed that she knew that she was talking about. The evidence that she tied in was very helpful as well. The examples of criminal cases solved by abandoned DNA were great evidence.
There were some aspects of this paper that influenced me, but the message of the essay as a whole didn’t influence me. I believe that the police should use whatever techniques necessary to catch criminals. I don’t care if they have my DNA because I’m not going to be perpetrating any crimes. The only way I was influenced was that now I agree that there should be at least some regulation on this practice. My values and beliefs disagree with a lot of what Joh was saying, so I found myself constantly picking apart what she was saying and disagreeing with it.
In The Cast for National DNA Identification Cards, Ben Quarmby is pointing out the reasons that a national identification card is needed now more than ever with the threat of terrorism looming over our nation. He talks about how we need to regulate who is our country and that a DNA ID card would make it much easier to do that. It would also be much easier to figure out who committed crimes.
Like the first two essays, Quarmby focuses on primary research in his essay. The research and evidence he provides are all very helpful to his argument. The only real research or evidence that he provides is the quote from Alan Dershowitz, “near foolproof system of identification using fingerprints, or for even greater accuracy, DNA information” (Quarmby 38). Quarmby does a good job pointing out that Dershowitz is known for his liberal stance, which makes it more surprising that he supports a national DNA card system.
I wasn’t influenced by this essay very much because I already agreed with what the author was saying. Some of the points he made gave me more reasons to agree with him. I’d say that my prior beliefs really effected how I read this essay because I was more open to accepting what the author was saying.
In Putting a Price on Nature, Drenner is discussing the dangers of drilling in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge. He takes a very liberal stance on all the issues, primarily focusing on saving the wildlife and making it sound like drilling for oil will be the end of the world. He does use good points to back up this argument though.
Similar to the other essays, Drenner uses primary research in his essay. He does a great job of incorporating his research and evidence to support his essay. He even includes some of the points that his opposition makes, but is quick to shoot those down with his own counterpoints. That is the best part of this essay. He includes the opposition arguments, so his paper isn’t completely bias, and then brings out his counterargument. In the end, he’s leaving a lot of the decision up to the reader by presenting both sides.
I was influenced a little by this essay because I do care about the earth, but I also care about our economy and oil. I agree that wildlife should be preserved as best as possible, but there are methods that we could use to get that oil that would effect a very small portion of the wildlife. My values, once again, greatly effected how I read this. As soon as I saw that he was against drilling in ANWR, my brain turned off and I stopped listening to what he was saying. I had to make myself keep reading and stay as open as possible so I could get what he was saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)