Blog Post Article 2 10/20/17

 Alex Pierson

 Professor Aggarwal

 ENG.140

 October 2017

           As our nation copes with The Las Vegas Shooting, the public eagerly awaits to hear President Donald Trump’s statement on this horrific mass shooting. Our country was exposed to hundreds of articles discussing their opinions on whether or not this was an act of terrorism. On October 3rd, CNN published an article titled “Trump mum on whether Las Vegas shooting was an act of domestic terrorism” Many would agree that this should be categorized as a domestic terrorist attack based on the blunt definition. Which states “the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator’s own country against their fellow citizens.”

           Donald Trump consitently declined the use of the term along with other law enforcement officials to describe the largest massacre in modern American history. The source states “Trump said that Stephen Paddock was a “sick man, demented man,” but did not answer the reporters’ questions at the White House about whether he committed an act of domestic terror.” There is no confirmed explanation as to why Trump avoids the term when referring to this attack, but it does evoke confusion within the public’s beliefs.

            While other civilians formulate their outlook on the incident, the article spoke to gun-control advocate Mark Kelly. Kelly states “this was an ambush if there ever was one, this was domestic terrorism.” Kelly may not be wrong, but the problem revealed is that there is no such charge under federal law. The US does not include this as a stand-alone charge therefore this explains why Trump ignores this as an act of terrorism.

           In conclusion, Trump is avoiding calling this form of terrorism because there is not much the federal government can do. Regardless of this classifying as domestic terrorism, it will not be admitted as anything more. This could be our society’s way of distancing the truth of the attack. In hopes the federal law will change, people can entitle this massacre as the domestic terrorist attack it is.

Blog Post Article 1 10/20/17

 Alex Pierson

 Professor Aggarwal

 ENG.140

 October 2017

             Our nation is experiencing worldwide sorrow as we reflect on the traumatizing Las Vegas Shooting. On October 1st 2017, gunman Stephen Paddock open fired on a crowd at The Harvest Music Festival. Paddock caused four hundred eight nine non-fatal injuries and fifty nine deaths, including the perpetrator himself. Hundreds of articles have been published discussing the incident and expressing opinions on whether or not this mass shooting was an act of terrorism.

           On October 3rd, The New Yorker published an article titled “Why we should resist calling the Las Vegas Shooting “Terrorism”. It states “the reality is, the Las Vegas shooting- at least as far as we know now- was not an act of terrorism.” Going further, the source explains the specific criteria required for the shooting to be considered a terroristic act. The perpetrator  had to be a politically motivated, in which Paddock was not.

           The article then refers to terrorism as a war and how it has created a separate category of law enforcement in this country. The source states “Defendants in terrorism cases are treated as enemies rather than criminals. Prosecutors employ war rhetoric against them, and judges follow special sentencing guidelines in deciding their fate.” This is another example of why The New Yorker wants to avoid referring to this event as terrorism beuase it is causing unfair division in law enforcement.

           In conclusion, the article believes that our society is so quick to label this as terroristic attack because it encourages distancing the truth. “Viewing him as a regular person who needs no particular beliefs, affiliation, or label- or even a gun license- to kill dozens of people makes us feel utterly defenseless. We are.” The New Yorker had a strong argument against others who disagree. They included several valid points and backed up the information with hard evidence. Personally, I was persuaded and now agree with this articles perception.

Blog Post 10/10/17

 Alex Pierson

 Professor Aggarwal

 ENG. 140

 October 2017

             Located on the campus of Rollins College is the Cornell Fine Arts Museum. My peers and I were lucky enough to experience this gallery and reflect on the impactful pieces. This museum integrates works of art along with informative learning. Several pieces were on display but one attracted my attention specifically.

           A large neon light piece consisting of sixty-nine individual fluorescent fixtures projected shades of blue across the room. The artwork was titled “EOS” by artist Spencer Finch. Spencer’s inspiration came from the idea of incorporating art with science, explaining how they both left space for imagination. He plays with the emotive quality of light and translates the way a familiar place feels at a specific time. I had my own impression on how the art was personally depicted.

I noticed how all the squares were separate, yet fit into an ordered fashion. They’re also different shades of blue and green and the tiles were shifted in different directions. Also, I noticed that standing close to the lights I felt dizzy and light-headed, much like an optical illusion effect. I then began comparing this piece to our society. Thinking that each individual light was a person and how were all expected to fit together and work in a systematic way. The colors represented the different races and ethnicitys’ of humans in our world. Then I interpreted the two different directions of tiles as the two political parties. I explained that when approaching the piece I felt disoriented. I conveyed this as the confusion within in our society. We are assumed to have a functioning form of life. But in reality when we go deeper into specific ways of discovering our way of life; there is no order. That disoriented feeling was our society losing their sense of direction.`

I enjoyed the conceptual thoughts that this piece expressed. Mentally engaging in all the artwork was truly mind stimulating and a nice break from the classroom. I will most defiantly be back to visit the Cornell Fine Arts Museum.

Blog Post 9/29/17

Alex Pierson

Professor Aggarwal

ENG 140

28 September 2017

           The New York Times recently posted an article titled “Corporations Have Rights. Why Shouldn’t Rivers?” Initially the heading evoked confusion. Corporations include numerous people in which act as one single entity and a river is an existence of nature that does not contain any people. Comparing the two seems unrealistic and comical in a way. The article states “If a corporation has rights, the author argues, so, too, should an ancient waterway that has sustained human life for as long as it has existed in the Western United States.” This lawsuit drew immediate attention by lawmakers explaining that “rivers and trees are not people.” Environmentalist argue that ecosystems across the nation are being destroyed by human exploitation and they deserve to be represented as well. The lawsuit also claims that the state violated the waterway by polluting and draining the surrounding environment.

           Although some lawmakers view this proposal as completely ridiculous, others have considered the idea of giving nature legal rights. The article explains that this idea has been suggested since 1972 by lawyer Christopher Stone. Stones main focus were tress and deforestation, his article was titled “Should Trees Have Standing?”. His idea was that natural objects should be recognized as legal parties, which could be represented by humans that can sue on their behalf. This view was unsuccessful in the court at that time, but was later proven to have an impact. Some countries have already taken action on this proposal. For example, in Ecuador, they have now declared that nature “has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles.”

           This lawsuit doesn’t appear as absurd as it once did while reading the heading. I agree that nature should have some kind of protection Act to encourage the preservation of the environmental essence. If establishing “rivers to have rights” is the way to take initiative then I support this argument. The idea is not meant to be taken literal but as an alternative approach to force humans to understand the importance of conserving the environment

Blog Entry 9/15/17

Alex Pierson

 Writing About the News

 Professor Aggarwal

 September 2017

 Blog Entry #3

             The recent natural disaster known as Hurricane Irma, has left a path of destruction across Florida, South Carolina and Georgia. As of Friday morning, approximately 1.9 million utility customers are still left without power. Left having to bare the ninety-degree temperatures of Florida without running water or air conditioning. While the hurricane approached, the lines for gas and generators heightened as locals furiously gathered all necessities to survive. After Hurricane Irma tore through Florida, evacuees made their way back to their destructed homes. Houses in hard hit neighborhoods were flooded, without power, and overall destroyed. Debris filled the streets making certain areas almost unrecognizable. As 100,000 residents rummaged through ruins, President Donald Trump traveled to Southern Florida. He viewed the damage and meet/handed food out to victims of this travesty. Small army utility crews of 1,000 people, consistently travel to Florida providing help and rescue wherever needed.

           Being a part of this hurricane personally makes me view it in a different perspective. I witnessed the damage it did to my house and my city. My family and friends are the “victims” out there that are still left without power. Living in Florida, we expect numerous hurricanes, but Hurricane Irma approached quickly and without warning. Before the hit, I did not expect this much destruction and as a result and I am glad that my family was prepared. Now more than ever, Floridians need to untie and restore our state. In all, help anyone out there  in need, even something as simple as cleaning the college campus can make a difference.

Blog 2 (Sept.6)

Alex Pierson

Professor Aggarwal

Writing about the News

6 September 2017

             President Donald Trump neglected his Republican values and agreed to strike deal with Democratic congressional leaders. On Wednesday, September 6th 2017, President Trump deliberately agreed to increase the debt limit and administer aid to those affected by Hurricane Harvey. Trump disregarded his Republican allies and hardly negotiated with the Democrats. Republican leaders intended on withholding the debt limit at eighteen months, while the Democratic Party vigorously demanded it to be lowered to three. Without hesitation Trump immediately agreed. He abandoned his republican values just to receive the opposing sides legislative votes.

           A president should consistently support the party he or she represents, regardless of the situation. Some republicans may view what Trump did was necessary, but he deserted his political values. What Trump spontaneously agreed to caused friction within the Republican Party and dishonored all he is supposed to act for. Not only did President Trump forsaken the republican principles, he also gave false hope to the opposing side in future decisions.

           Trumps impulsive settlement can lead the Democratic Party into believing they have gained an advantage against the Republicans. They successfully convinced Trump to give them exactly what they wanted, generating them to believe they can convince him of anything in the near future. This makes the Republican Party look weak and President Trump appear untrustworthy.

           In conclusion, Trump should have never agreed to the Democratic proposal so quickly and effortlessly. Regardless of the phenomenon, he should not be disloyal to the republican standards. As a result, President Trump arises untrustworthy. He needs to take into account all the contributing factors when accepting a drastic agreement like this and not ignore Republican standards.

The New York Times Headings

Alex Pierson Professor Vidhu Aggarwal Writing About: The News ENG 140 1 September 2017

The heading of the article published on The New York Times reads “ Chemical Blasts at Flooded Plant; More Evacuees in Houston.” Thousands of Americans across the United States are being informed on television, radio, and online about the tragedy that is currently occurring in Texas. People can’t seem to avoid the numerous media outlets relating to this disaster. The typical reader of this article can assume that there is a correlation to Americans who read it. Let’s say someone is unfamiliar with this event. For example, a foreigner overseas; the heading of the article can be difficult to comprehend. A person who lives internationally is not always knowledgable about the current events happening in the United States. This specific event is a major news story here, someone in another part of the world may have heard nothing about it. “Chemical Blasts at Flooded Plant; More Evacuees in Houston” can be read as two distinct topics. Thus, confusing the global reader on wether or not the beginning and end of the heading have a correlation. Not identifying the location of where the chemical blasts is taking place can cause a reader to get disoriented. If it were worded as “ More Evacuees in Houston due to a Chemical Blast at Flooded Plant”, it may be easier to comprehend. The global reader would understand it is a cause and effect and not two separate topics. Something as simple as switching the order of words in a heading can make it easier to understand the content. Having a well structured heading is an important aspect to acquire when developing a heading. Another important aspect to keep in mind when publishing a heading is the creativity. No one is going to be interested in an article with a heading they have seen countless times. When I searched “Chemical Blasts at Flooded Plant; More Evacuees in Houston” on the general browser , many other sources came up relating similar stories to The New York Times publish. It’s crucial to make the heading distinctive and unique that way it can be memorable. When it is memorable more readers will return to the source of where the article is published, therefore resulting in strong ongoing business.  The New York Times is already a well developed business, this will just let them remain a top competitor. It easy to see some weaknesses of this article heading, but their is a specific strength that intrigues me. Personally, being the lazy millennial I am, we tend to be drawn to headings that aren't long and don't require a lot of effort to read. “ Chemical Blasts at Flooded Plant; More Evacuees in Houston” is short and straightforward. If it were long and  filled of unnecessary words a reader could quickly lose interest. Having a succinct heading encourages the reader to proceed onto the rest of the article. So I do have to commend The New York Times for getting their point across with a minimal amount of words. In conclusion, their has to be thought put into the heading of an article. If not well constructed the article can be at risk to fail. An appropriate heading is just as important as the content that follows up. A reminder that this is my personal opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of the heading “Chemical Blasts at Flooded Plant; More Evacuees in Houston” published in The New York Times.