Final

Posted: May 6, 2014 in Uncategorized

I would say that I’ve done pretty well on the assignments I’ve completed for this class, considering it has been a long time since I’ve been in school. I have a long ways to go as a sucessful professional writer, but I definately  have built my persuasive writing skills by taking the the comments from my professor and peers and trying to better those areas that they felt needed improving. I have also done a great deal of research on writing papers with the help of my professor, peers, internet sites, and the text books from this English class. Although I might not be a completely seasoned persuasive writer, I have learned alot about what it takes to write a good paper as well as what to look for.

I still have alot of goals in writing I wish to accomplish, but this class has helped me know exactly how to reach those goals, although it will take hard work, dedication, and practice. Most of these goals include grammer, puctuation, and sentence structure. All of the text books from this class such as Norton Field Guide have helped strengthen these areas by showing me correct formatting, citations, and different styles of writing.

This coarse, more than any other, has helped me catch up to alot of my younger peers. I am slowly starting to remember material that was taught to me almost a decade ago. I still have so much to learn, practice, and research, but writing skills are one of the most important skills a person can have. I have to write many other papers, essays, and blogs in other classes and I don’t think it would have been as easy if not for the valuable knowledge I’ve learn in this English class.

Since my major is Psychology, I really need to be a good writer, especially in the persuasive way. I will have to pay close attention to detail, take detailed notes on patients, and keep informational writings on clients. I will need to make sure that all charts, notes, and detailed findings  are easy to understand to other professionals in my field and even to the patients in some circumstances. Overlooked findings or details have no place in the profession of mental health and desease. Those in my profession are always writing documents about their own ideas, theories, treatments, and those documents go on to help many other people. Many of those professionals are writers of books, magazines, and journals. Without sucessful writing skills this would not be possible for them.

In conclusion, this class was not easy to say the least, but it was a enlighten challenged that only bettered by writing abilities, creative thinking, and tools for a sucessful career. I was challenged many times by having to write paper after to paper and reading other students, teachers, and professional writer’s papers and essays. I love the fact that I was challenged because that is what education is all about. If a coarse is not challenging to a student it doesnt seem to serve a pupose. It is my belief that I will be living this class knowing so much more then I ever imagined and for that I am delighted and thankful.

9/11 Myth or Fact

Posted: May 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

The events that occurred on Tuesday September 11, 2001 left our world in shock and utter dismay, especially for the citizens of America. At 8:45 am, American Airlines Boeing 767 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, in New York City, just 18 minutes later an identical plane crashed into the south tower. As the media cameras rolled the news footage and millions of viewers watched in horror as a third and fourth plane crashed. The third plane, American Airlines Boeing 757 reportedly hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C at 9:45am. The fourth plane, Flight 93, crash landed in a nearby field in Pennsylvania at 10:10am. The flight was rumored to have been aimed for the White House. Within an hour of the fourth plane crashing into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center, both buildings collapsed. These events left over 3,000 people dead and many injured, including police and firefighters. It was obvious that America had been a victim of a planned attack, but by who and why?

As the world waited for answers, it did not take long for one to come. It was reported that our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, financed by Saudi Arabian citizen Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization. According to reports, the attacks were planned as a result of America supporting Israel and our military being in the Middle East.

With the who and why question answered, most people had a new question, what were we going to do about it? At 9 pm on the night of the attacks, President Bush addressed the public in a speech where he said “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” This speech was the first of many in what resulted in Bush’s plan called Operation Enduring Freedom. This meant America was declaring war against Osama Bin Laden’s regime. On October 7, 2001, the American military was sent to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group he had there, but America did not foresee the decade of war that was before us. The book, “Think, American Government”, mentions is fighting international terrorism. The text explains that terrorist organization do not have home countries, therefore, the task the United States Armed Forces are responsible for  is identifying them as terrorist, finding their location, and the last step could be several things. It could be execution, sometimes a prisoner of war that the United States Military can use as a rat to give up their leaders. In many cases the alleged terrorist will kill themselves before capture. The text continues that in 2003, President George Bush ordered U.S. military to overthrow Saddam Hussein while invading Iraq. Iraq had not been reported as having anything to do with the attacks on 9/11, but Bush believed that Iraq had WMD that Saddam would share with enemies of the United States. It turned out that Iraq didn’t have any WMD, but Saddam Hussein was overthrown.  Osama bin Laden was eventually killed on May 2, 2011, it’s been over 11 years and U.S troops are still there. More than 6,000 troops have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded since the start of the war.(Roberts, Amy, and Lindsey Knight. “By the Numbers: Memorial Day and Veterans.”)

 All of these events are extremely important because I, like thousands of others, believe 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to war and America was never attacked by terrorist on 9/11, but that it was an attack planned by those within our own government. THE 9/11 truth seekers group have been demanding the government for years to investigate the event using several other new experts. There are unanswered questions and America and our troops deserve the truth and a explanation. The questions that arose from those who believe this theory are both simple and complex. Questions such as:

 

• How did reinforced steel buildings the size of the Twin Towers collapse due to fire?

 

• Why was there such minimal damage done to the Pentagon?

 

• Why military planes were never sent to intercept the planes after the first crash?

 

• Why did President Bush stay at an elementary school in Florida for over an hour after the first attack?

 

• How did building 7 collapse when it wasn’t even hit?

As 9/11 truth seeker and other similar groups started making a stand for their cause, media groups, blogs, and other social media outlets started to take notice. The subject of whether or not the events of 9/11 were true or false started to be a heated topic all over the world. Countries like France and England were already starting to print articles in their newspapers and magazines expressing their skepticism of America’s terrorist attack. Many groups actually started talking about the subject with an open mind, although other groups were outraged by even the suggestion that America’s government had anything to do with it. The race to the truth had now began between the two opposing sides.

   In 2005 the magazine Popular Mechanics decided to write an article entitled “Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report.” In the article the authors set out to disprove all conspiracy theories that had risen since the events took place. The authors proceeded by go through each of the four main conspiracy topics which are the planes, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93. 

            First let’s begin with Popular Mechanics plane explanations. The authors start off by writing:

            “The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of “facts” to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren’t commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.”

            The main fault with this explanation is the authors completely avoid what most skeptics believe actually happened which is the jetliners were taken over by remote controlled and electronically piloted into the targets. Until Popular Mechanics debunk this theory, this particular part of their paper is unexplained.

            Moving on to the “No Stand-Down Order” theory that Popular Mechanics has, the authors write:

            “On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,” says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.  Why couldn’t ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them.”

            This explanation used to debunk the so-called myth is actually comical and is best explained by Jim Hoffman who wrote a paper debunking the Popular Mechanics article. He wrote in response to that explanation:

“The idea that Air Traffic Control had to “pick up the phone and literally dial” NORAD — a routine procedure in handling unresponsive aircraft — does not begin to explain the long gaps between ATC being aware of off-course and non-responsive jetliners and NORAD acting. Standard procedure was for ATC to notify NORAD if they were unable to contact such an aircraft within three minutes.

 

Here PM’s “FACT” is taken directly from the 9/11 Commission Report, which changed the official timeline for at least the third time. Two important omissions here are: • The June 1st order which centralized intercept authority in the Secretary of Defense.  Multiple war games scheduled for the day of 9/11/01, at least one involving a plane-into-building scenario. When the jetliners’ transponders were switched off, their blips on the ATC screens lost their identifying data, and would stand out against the remaining blips, which were labeled.  The idea that NORAD had no radar coverage of much of North America comes from that best-selling work of fiction, the 9/11 Commission Report. Evaluate this assertion in light of this description of NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain’s Operations Center, as it was on 9/11/01.”

   Moving on to the World Trade Centers, Popular Mechanics response to all the theories was as follows:

“Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.  The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower’s core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel—and fiery destruction throughout the building. “It’s very hard to document where the fuel went,” says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, “but if it’s atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it’ll go off.”  Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that “some elevators slammed right down” to the ground floor. “The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died,” says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary “9/11,” by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.”

   Popular Mechanics began its portion of the article on the World Trade Center with that paragraph to prepare readers for their beginning attempt to discredit the theory most sceptics have that there is no scientific way that the World Trade Centers collapsed by planes alone. The authors attempt to imply that the argument that jet fuel fires cannot melt steel is nothing more than a conspiracy theory made up by skeptics and it just simply isn’t true based on the scentific information they go on to record to quote in this paragraph:

           

“Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire Chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse of Burning Buildings: A Guide to Fire ground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.” “Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.”

Popular Mechanics yet again did not to their research, had they done so they would know that the idea that fire temperatures,  much less steel temperatures  were anywhere close to 1800º F “runs contrary to experience with building fires. Fire tests by Corus Construction recorded maximum steel temperatures of about 680ºF in UNINSULATED parking garages. The claim that insulation was knocked off the WTC steel is routinely invoked in defenses of the official story to make the weakening of the steel seem more plausible”. With that people said Poular Mechanics could easily use their next paragraph to attempt to debunk that statement. The authors write:

“ But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.  “The jet fuel was the ignition source,” Williams tells PM. “It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

            The most interesting or unexplained fact about that statement is no fire even worse then that of the World Trade Center or building 7  has ever brought down a steel frame building high rise before. To many skeptics, this alone is a smoking gun that some fact is missing. The only plausible explanation is a controlled demolition. In Jim Hoffman’s article he writes:

“No amount of “physical damage to the south face of building 7” can account for these three collapse features: WTC 7 fell vertically with great precision, WTC 7 fell at nearly the rate of free-fall. WTC 7’s rubble pile was amazingly tidy, confined almost entirely to the city block on which the building stood.  These characteristics are precisely what the art and science of controlled demolition seeks to accomplish through the precise placement and timing of the detonations of large number of explosive charges”.

 

            Thirdly the Pentagon. The biggest question concerning this is why there was such a small hole for such a big plane or was there even a plane a whole? Many skeptics didn’t see any wreckage. This is what Popular Mechanics had to say:

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon’s exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings. Why wasn’t the hole as wide as a 757’s 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn’t punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon’s load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. “If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building,” Sozen tells PM, “it didn’t happen.”

Debunking Popular Mechanics on this subject is a little difficult, why? Because Popular Mechanics didn’t really debunk a “myth” to begin with and many skeptics differ on this particular belief, but with that being said one fact that is debunk is “The page  ERROR: Aircraft Crashes Always Leave Large Debris debunks the idea that large pieces of aircraft should have survived the crash and remained outside the building” Jim Hoffman also notes that :

“It’s interesting that PM makes a clearly overreaching claim here that the scrap proves it was a passenger plane. Could PM be baiting the reader to challenge the official account of of the Pentagon crash precisely because physical-evidence-based claims about what happened there are such an effective distraction?”

Lastly, Flight 93 is also difficult Popular Mechanics write :

“Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the “bumble planes” theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.”

With this claim neither side really win because “Cockpit voice and flight data recordings from Flight 93 have never been made public, so we have to take PM and their privileged experts’ word about what they show”

            In conclusion I that at the very least America is owned more of an explanation then we have gotten and a much more thorough investigation.

Works Citied

“Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths – Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face up to Reality.” Debunking Popular Mechanics. Ae9/11truth.org, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The Pentagon.” Popular Mechanics. Popularmechanics.com, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

Hoffman, Jim. “Popular Mechanics’ Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth.” Popular Mechanics Does 9/11. 911review.com, 10 Feb. 2005. Web. 05 May 2014

Roberts, Amy, and Lindsey Knight. “By the Numbers: Memorial Day and Veterans.” CNN.com Cable News Network, 23 May. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

The events that occurred on Tuesday September 11, 2001 left our world in shock and utter dismay, especially for the citizens of America. At 8:45 am, American Airlines Boeing 767 crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, in New York City, just 18 minutes later an identical plane crashed into the south tower. As the media cameras rolled the news footage and millions of viewers watched in horror as a third and fourth plane crashed. The third plane, American Airlines Boeing 757 reportedly hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C at 9:45am. The fourth plane, Flight 93, crash landed in a nearby field in Pennsylvania at 10:10am. The flight was rumored to have been aimed for the White House. Within an hour of the fourth plane crashing into the north and south towers of the World Trade Center, both buildings collapsed. These events left over 3,000 people dead and many injured, including police and firefighters. It was obvious that America had been a victim of a planned attack, but by who and why?

As the world waited for answers, it did not take long for one to come. It was reported that our nation was attacked by Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations, financed by Saudi Arabian citizen Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist organization. According to reports, the attacks were planned as a result of America supporting Israel and our military being in the Middle East.

With the who and why question answered, most people had a new question, what were we going to do about it? At 9 pm on the night of the attacks, President Bush addressed the public in a speech where he said “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” This speech was the first of many in what resulted in Bush’s plan called Operation Enduring Freedom. This meant America was declaring war against Osama Bin Laden’s regime. On October 7, 2001, the American military was sent to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power and destroy Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group he had there, but America did not foresee the decade of war that was before us. Although Osama bin Laden was eventually killed on May 2, 2011, it’s been over 11 years and U.S troops are still there. More than 6,000 troops have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded since the start of the war.
(Roberts, Amy, and Lindsey Knight. “By the Numbers: Memorial Day and Veterans.”)

All of these events are extremely important because I, like thousands of others, believe 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to war and America was never attacked by terrorist on 9/11, but that it was an attack planned by those within our own government. THE 9/11 truth seekers group have been demanding the government for years to investigate the event using several other new experts. There are unanswered questions and America and our troops deserve the truth and a explanation. The questions that arose from those who believe this theory are both simple and complex. questions such as:

• How did reinforced steel buildings the size of the Twin Towers collapse due to fire?
• Why was there such minimal damage done to the Pentagon?
• Why military planes were never sent to intercept the planes after the first crash?
• Why did President Bush stay at an elementary school in Florida for over an hour after the first attack?
• How did building 7 collapse when it wasn’t even hit?

This is just to name a few. While believers of this theory were busy trying to answer these puzzling questions and attract other believers, people who thought it was crazy and downright un-American to even question the possibility had their own questions, opinions, and ideas, such as:

• Why would our government do this?
• Political and Military leaders had no motive for these events.
• There is no way such a large operation could have been kept secret and covered up.
• The government provided an explanation for why the World Trade Centers collapsed and why the damage to the Pentagon was minimal.
• Military planes were sent to intercept the planes, they just didn’t arrive in time.

In my argument I will answer questions by both believers and non-believers. I will debunk statements made my our government leaders, media, and the Popular Mechanics articles that claim to debunk the theory that we were lied to about the events that took place. I will use government documents, eye witness accounts, expert’s testimonies, and scientific research to prove my theories as well as separate truth and fact within many books, news articles, and political leaders’ statements. By doing so, I can not only prove that most of the explanations given by our government are not possible, but that there is no other theory that can explain the events that happen that fateful day.

Works Citied
“Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths – Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face up to Reality.” Debunking Popular Mechanics. Ae9/11truth.org, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The Pentagon.” Popular Mechanics. Popularmechanics.com, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

Roberts, Amy, and Lindsey Knight. “By the Numbers: Memorial Day and Veterans.” CNN.com Cable News Network, 23 May. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

Watson, Paul J. “Debunking Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Lies.” Prisonplanet.com, 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

“Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report – The Pentagon.” Popular Mechanics. Popularmechanics.com, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

This Article and the articles also found on the site try to discredit many of the so called “conspiracy theorist” theories about what really happened to the pentagon on September 11, 2001, as well as the other events that may or may have not have happened by attempting to use scientific research as well as experts to “debunk” the theories in everyway possible.

“Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths – Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face up to Reality.” Debunking Popular Mechanics. Ae9/11truth.org, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

This articles, as well as the other articles also on the site defend themselves against Popular Mechanics “debunking” strategy by “debunking” Popular Mechanics. The writers go into grave detail in defending every detail Popular Mechanics said against them and other 9/11 truth supporters.

Watson, Paul J. “Debunking Popular Mechanics’ 9/11 Lies.”  Prisonplanet.com, 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 03 Apr. 2014.

This article is probably the most bluntly written source. The authors really tear apart Popular Mechanics. They not only bring to light the lies Popular Mechanics have written, but they also point out a very interesting fact. That fact being that Popular Mechanics is actually sponsored by our own Military. The article even says:

“The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and ‘anti-terror’ operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?”

The first source is obviously the opposite of the other two, but in my opinion, by reading all the articles I would definitely say I have a case for a strong persuasive paper.

Turkle Reading Response

Posted: March 25, 2014 in Uncategorized

Sherry Turkle discusses a very interesting subject on her topic of “Together, but alone?” She explains how in todays world we can be in the presence of someone, but in some scents due to the amount of interaction we have with our phone, tablets, etc, that we are actually more alone. We are either tuning out others, being tuned out ourselves, or tuning each other out. She talks about how people seem to be much more comfortable having conversation with people via text, email, or messaging, rather than the old fashion way of just being face to face in conversation. Not only that she mentions how we are more willing to talk in more detail about things than we would when talking face to face. She says we are redefining human communication and connection and that we need to think hard about what kind of connection we wont to have with people in the future. She gives several reasons of why people feel more comfortable talking on their devices rather than face to face, all of which seem quite obvious. Reasons like always being heard, easier to get what you want to say out, etc. She says that people turn to their devices because they don’t want to be alone and alone time is something that needs to be practiced.

Although I agree with Turkle’s discussion. I don’t think much can be done to separate humans from their devices. The technology is already in place. Even in school a lot of the work is to be done on a computer. This very assignment for example is being blogged about. I don’t think the problem is learning to deal with alone time, but more about what we talked about in last weeks class, the battle between our 1st and 2nd self. Trying not to rely on technology 100% of the time, but finding a good balance. This balance that I speak of can be different according to the individual. Technology has done wonders for many people out there that were to shy to talk to anyone, even just a friend. Since the beginning of texting and social networking there has been a large advance in people going to college, finishing college, and developing better social skills. While I still believe that what Turkle says is true, its also a bit to obvious to be presented like a huge problem. before there were social networking there was the television, land line phone with party lines and 3 way calling. Every generation will have something that will seem to drift human contact in its old sense away, but I think that’s just an effect that human advancement plays.

 

Midterm essay

Posted: March 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

Prior to taking this class my background as a writer was extremely broad. My writing from an educational stand point is somewhat seasoned, considering this is my third college English course, however I feel my writing abilities may be rusty after a almost seven year gap between now and the last time I was enrolled in school. Although it’s been so long since I’ve written papers, articles, storys, and other such reading on a regular basis, now that I’m getting back in the swing of things I feel like I have reunited with a long lost friend. I’ve enjoyed writing since the first moment my crayon touched paper and yes I meant crayon. Starting about the age of four I couldn’t own enough pens, pencils, notebooks, or just paper for that matter. I would write story after story about everything from fairytales to science fiction and I of coarse always cast myself as the leading role. I found my storys could make all my dreams come true, even if the reality of the tale didn’t go past the paper. Sometimes my writing would take me to places that I’d never wanted to leave. I fell so deeply in love with my fictional self and the characters I wrote about. Being that I was a small child, I thought maybe, just maybe, if I believed hard enough my storys would come true. Of coarse later in life my ability to have such thoughts quickly scampered away and I fell into more mature works of writing partly due to the advancement level of my school writing assignments. Although the fictional storytales ended, I began to write a new chapter in my book. A chapter I would call “My real life”. I say that because that’s exactly what is was. I wrote in a journal everyday for almost a decade. I’d poor my heart out about anything and everything and sometimes even using brief illustrations to better depict the details of my life events, opinions, or just plain out feelings in general. For a second time I learned how to escape my life by writing, although ironically I was writing about the very thing I was trying to escape from. Unfortunately I eventually grew out of that type of writing as well, but still enjoyed my school writing assignments as challenging as they might have been at the time.

Since the beginning of the semester I’ve grown as a writer in many ways, but my strongest growth has been the ability to write about a specific prompt that I myself didn’t fully choose. This is a writing quality I’m extremely happy to have obtained because is strengthens my ability to write about anything at a moments notice, even if I start out not knowing a single detail about the topic.  Based on the feedback I’ve received, my primary goal is to work on my grammer, puncuation, and strong evidence to back up my claim or belief. Unfortunately grammer and puncuation has never came easy to me. When writing my papers or articles I try to proof read and refer back to the material in our books, but for some reason it doesn’t always seem click. I am being forced to teach myself things I should have gotten a grasp on years ago.

Although my major is Psychology/ Sociology, I havent completely chosen the exact career I hope to acheive. With that being said, I can say all the career paths I’m considering have a strong area for writing. Actually several of the career options I’m considering is writing. I could see myself as a writer of novels, a jounalist for the news media, or even a writer for an advice column for a newspaper or magazine. It’s obvious that without strong writing abilities these jobs can’t be in my future and to be honest, I don’t want to pursue a career that has little to no writing involved. I feel very passionate about writing and reading and as I’ve shown myself this semester, it’s a past time I’ve missed dearly.

In conclusion, I’ve realized writing not only will be in my life forever, but I don’t ever want to go that long again without writing. My plans for the future, no matter what career I choose, will consist of constantly trying to better my writing abilities. Hopefully in the future I will be a published author, but for right now I’m going to try and strengthen the one thing that makes me escape this world and this life if only for a brief moment,

 

In our always growing digital world where social networking, email, and online journals or blogs, seem to be redefining our lives when it comes to privacy or lack thereof, many new problems are arising, but to be fair are they really new? Or more so are they really problems? More questions and concerns are popping up every day. Web privacy is a hot issue in almost every social area. This includes everywhere from home life, school, all the way to the work place. People are asking “Should I post this on my web page?”, “Should my child really display this on his/her Facebook?”, or even “Should I punish my employee for posting this on their social networking page?” It is beginning to be very hard to distinguish right from wrong or white from black and everything is kind of mixing in that “gray area”. Employers are being sued by employees, employees by employers. Schools are being sued by parents, parents by other parents. All of this because in one person’s or another’s opinion, that particular student, teacher, or employee overshared. The issue bares the question, what is an overshare? More so, where is the line going to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not?

   A few years back a writer for TIME magazine named Steven Johnson wrote an article entitled “ Web Privacy: In Praise of Oversharing”. Underneath the title it said “ The web is making us more intimate strangers. Why going public can be a civic good”. In the article Johnson talks about his friend, another author and media critic, named Jeff Jarvis. Johnson talks about Jarvis’s battle with prostate cancer and how Jarvis decided to deal or cope with his diagnosis and the recovery. Jarvis decided to start publicly blogging about his condition and what it was like to battle such a condition. Jarvis’s blog topic was not what had many readers dismayed, but more the content of the blog. Anyone that has battled cancer or has had a close family member or friend battle it, knows the horrifying and private details that can be exposed when being bluntly honest about the topic. The kind of details that a doctor would express to his cancer patient or the cancer patient to the doctor. Johnson writes “He blogged about his reaction to the diagnosis, about the challenges of opting for surgery over radiation therapy. After the surgery, he blogged about the humiliation of wearing adult diapers. He blogged about his erectile dysfunction, albeit using slightly less technical language.” Johnson goes on to write that he found out about Jarvis’s condition through a twitter update that was linked to Jarvis’s blog. Johnson mentions how that’s how we deal with life threatening illness today. Johnson mentions how Jarvis said the decision to blog about his condition was an easy choice to make and the first thing he thought of was to go public. While some would say that Jarvis’s blog was an “overshare” of private details, others engaged in his blog as if it was any other webpage or forum. Many people commented on his blog with tips, questions, and encouragements.  Johnson writes “Jarvis built an improvised support group around his blog: a space of solidarity, compassion, and shared expertise”. With so much negativity about oversharing on the web, in the case it actually seemed to be very beneficial for some, but can it be just as harmful in other cases?

 For most that use Twitter, Facebook, or any other social networking site, their first instinct when getting news on just about everything is to tweet it, post it, or in Jarvis’s case, blog about it.  Most who use these sites can agree that they’ve seen almost every intimate detail of someone’s life on these sites by at least one friend. These details range from engagement, marriage, divorce, pregnancy, court battles, deaths, and as Johnson has showed us, life threatening illness. Details that in the past most people wanted to keep private and fought to keep private. Document after document has to be signed when seeing a doctor or lawyer. Usually it’s ironically called a “Privacy Agreement” where you sign to make sure the establishment keeps your privacy, but yet after signing, we go home and put it on the web. A lot of times people actually post these private details while sitting in the very office they’re at. With that being said, the consequences of posting certain private material have lead to people loosing their jobs, becoming victims of cyber bulling, and facing disciplinary actions at school. Obviously actions needs to be taken to prevent this, but how?

In Jason Ohler’s article “Digital Citizenship Means Character Education For The Digital Age”, he has some very valid suggestions. Although his article refers to students, it is still applicable to anyone who uses social networking websites. He suggests that character education should be put into schools when dealing with Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and even texting. In other words, instead of having students refrain from anything to do with social medial in schools, we should be educating students on the proper use of it. Ohler mentions the concept of living two lives or one. He writes “that’s the question that should drive our desire to help children develop a sense of perspective about living in the digital age, which views success in terms of community and humanity, as well as abundance and bandwidth.” Ohler proposes that having students refrain from social medial usage in school and then the students picking it back up at home leads to living two lives. He also writes “This leaves our children to fend for themselves as they come to grips with issues of digital citizenship, cyber safety, and the responsible use of technology.” We have all seen many issues that have risen when leaving digital education up to teens. Issues include cyberbullying, texting/posting nude or obscene photos, or just simply “oversharing” private details that could come back to hurt them in the future. Ohler writes:

On the other hand, the “one life” perspective assumes the opposite — that the most important job before us is to help students understand issues of digital responsibility, and to do so at school as part of a digital health initiative. It assumes that such an initiative should be largely dedicated to helping our digital kids balance the individual empowerment of digital technology with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility. Above all, the one life perspective invites students to bring their digital lives into our schools so that we can pursue these objectives in ways that are meaningful to them. This can only happen if we help them live one life, not two.

Ohler uses a perfect example by mentioning sex education. A few decades back, the debate on whether or not sex education should be taught in schools or left up to the parents began. Today sex education is being taught in some form in almost every school in many countries. As a result of this, students aren’t only receiving the facts of safe sex, but the percentage of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases have dropped. Ohler writes:

We are at the same point with regard to teaching digital health. We need to talk to children about how to live digital lifestyles that are informed, safe, and healthy. We need to set this discussion within the context of encouraging students to develop the many social and professional opportunities that the digital world provides. This discussion needs to happen at school as well as at home. The inclusion of digital health and digital citizenship in our educational lives is inevitable. As we reflect on sex education, we look back and wonder why it took us so long to do something that makes so much sense today. Given that this will undoubtedly be the direction for helping children live digital lifestyles in safe, positive ways, why not start our efforts in digital health and digital citizenship now?

If we commit now to Ohler suggestion, the question of what to share and what not to share can be a much easier decision to make. Although many post will still be considered to some as an overshare, it surely would reduce the amount of post that seem to negatively affect people in the immediate or far off future. If we don’t act on this issue now, we will find ourselves in the same place as we once were with sex education. Sex education took many decades to integrate into school. Is digital education really something we can afford to ignore? To those that have seen the negative effects oversharing can have will mostly likely say no, it not something we should ignore. Jarvis’s situation showed us that oversharing can be extremely helpful, but perhaps we all need some sort of character education when it come to the subject of oversharing in our digital lives.

 

 

Works Cited

Johnson, Steven. “Web Privacy: In Praise of Oversharing.” TIME Magazine. Timemagazine.com, 20 May 2010. Web. 24 Feb. 2013

OHLER, JASON. “Digital Citizenship Means Character Education For The Digital
Age.” Education Digest 77.8 (2012): 14. MasterFILE Premier. Web.
20 Feb. 2014.

 

 

An article was written by Helen A.S. Popkin of NBC News about a teacher’s aid that was fired due to her denying the principal of the school access to her private Facebook account after apparently word of a particular picture she posted got out. The picture was sent to a co worker and the  picture was that of a co-worker with her pants around her ankles, with the caption, “Thinking of you.”  The teacher’s aid, Kimberly Hester, has been fighting for her job back for over a year. She argues that she has a right to privacy, Hester’s story has been the highlight of many legislatures who are seeking to pass a bill that will make it illegal for employers to ask for access to social network accounts. Hester is reportedly in a continuous legal battle with the school while on unpaid leave and living off workman’s compensation.

This is really beginning to be a big deal in our society. While, this article doesn’t seem to take a stance, it definitely points out the problem many employees are facing today. Sadly, the question of weather or not its expectable for an employer to have access to your private social networking is being asked. Hester is completely right in saying she has a right to privacy. The principal surely wouldn’t come to a teachers home and ask to look through her photo album, so why is material from her private internet pages acceptable? Acceptance of this allows a employer to discriminate based on anything they may or may not like on that employee’s page.

     Jim Sleeper, a lecturer in Political Science at Yale University, recently wrote an article entitled “Fareed Zakaria’s Plagiarism: Even Worse Than It Looks”. It was an article written in response to the public apology given by Fareed Zakaria, A CNN star and a writer featured in TIME magazine. Fareed Zakaria was apologizing for trying to pass off Jill Lepore’s work from an article she wrote for The New Yorker as work of his own. Jim Sleeper quoted Alexander Abad-Santos, an Atlantic Wire reporter, who said “Zakaria committed egregious plagiarism.”

     Sleeper goes on to say that he doesn’t believe the offense ended there. Sleeper says that Zakaria is a trustee of Yale, which is a school known for having extremely strict rules about plagiarism and suspends or expels students when they do something like what Zakaria was guilty of doing. Sleeper believes that Zakaria should be held to the same standards that Yale holds their own students to and Zakaria should have to take leave or resign. Sleeper wrote he was even more stunned that Lepore, the author whose work was stolen by Zakaria, is even a Yale PhD herself and that Zakaria, if anyone, should surely know what it means to steal someone else’s work seeing as to how he does have a PhD from Harvard. Sleeper also suggests the possibility that perhaps Zakaria fobbed his TIME article to an assistant or intern from Yale and failed to proofread it properly before letting it run under his byline in time. Although Sleeper accepts the possibility as a plausible theory, he makes sure to add that even if that were the case, Zakaria still couldn’t put the blame on anyone else, but himself. Therefore, Sleeper continues, “he has issued his clipped but “unreserved” apology to Lepore”. Sleeper goes on to criticize Zakaria by saying he noted that Zakaria “has a bad habit of resorting to elitist, snarky put-downs of his critics.” 

    Sleeper ends his article by really cutting into Zakaria. Not only writing that Zakaria should apologize to Yale, but he also bluntly writes, “As long as he remains a Yale trustee, he will remain a sad example of Yale’s own transformation from a crucible of civic-republican leadership for America and the world into a global career-networking center and cultural galleria for a new elite that answers to no polity or moral code and that aggrandizes itself by plucking the fruits of others’ work.”

    Zakaria did explain why the error occurred, however some would say his explanation is just an easy excuse and one that has been heard in the past as I’m sure Jim Sleeper’s opinion would be. On the other hand, a lot of people found Zakaria’s defense to be quite reasonable and believable. TIME reported that “The mistake, [Zakaria] said, occurred when he confused the notes he had taken about Ms. Lepore’s article — he said he often writes his research in longhand — with notes taken from “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” by Adam Winkler (W.W. Norton, 2011), a copy of which was on his desk at his CNN office.”

    When Tim Graham of News Busters wrote about the story in his informative article, he included a paragraph from Zakaria’s TIME article and a paragraph from Lepore’s New Yorker article for comparison and analysis. Zakaria’s paragraph read:

 Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.

  Lepore’s paragraph read:

 As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.

     Plagiarism is defined as the act of using another person’s words or ideas without giving credit to that person. While I can’t argue that Fareed Zakaria didn’t by definition plagiarize Lepore’s work, I still find Jim Sleeper’s opinions to be both harsh and possibly biased. After all Jim Sleeper was himself an employee of Yale University and mentions often in his article how much Zakaria makes Yale look bad. If Yale gets a bad reputation, that includes all involved at Yale, including lecturers, such as Jim Sleeper himself.

    Sleeper’s article is nothing more than a conflict of interest when writing so boldly about a fellow Yale employee. Many readers of Sleeper’s article seemed to feel that way. A reader going under the username of freefromfreedom commented on the article’s page saying, “Sounds like someone is jealous. What he did is wrong and he deserves punishment. But you go so far out of your way to point out everyone’s connections to Yale and Harvard, but you exclude your own. I don’t trust your words because you didn’t spell out this clear bias and it leads me to think less of this argument.” Sleeper mentions his personal negative feelings toward Zakaria as well as publicly putting down the very institute that he not only works for, but accuses Zakaria for making it look bad.

     Fareed Zakaria did plagiarize, but I don’t agree with Jim Sleeper’s idea that Zakaria should take leave or resign, or that Yale should enforce that. Zakaria acknowledged his error, publicly apologized for his wrong doing, and naturally his writing reputation is damaged. Zakaria was also suspended by TIME magazine and CNN. As far as Zakaria making Yale look bad, I also disagree. Yale didn’t make or teach Zakaria to plagiarize nor did the school condone it in the aftermath. Jim Sleeper, however, did a fine job in bringing even more negative attention towards Yale. A lecturer at Yale bad mouthing the institution as well as a fellow Yale employee in such a harsh public matter couldn’t possibly be making the school look better. In fact I believe Sleeper revealed an institution that has a Political Science lecturer that thinks you should be nailed to a cross for bad journalism.

     It seems Jim Sleeper thinks highly of himself. If Sleeper wanted to voice his seemingly hostile opinion so publicly, he should have resigned from the university prior to his publication. Aileen Caldwell Laing, another reader who commented, seems to think along the same lines when she responds:

 Yeah, the more I read this article the more I got the impression that this wasn’t exactly an objective view point. Zakaria made a mistake and it probably wasn’t done on purpose. Can’t imagine it would be as he would have to know it would be discovered and blow up in his face. So he apologized which is right. But geez, you would think he prowls the streets beating up old ladies to hear this opinion writer talk. (“Fareed Zakaria’s Plagarism: Even Worse Than It Looks”)

     It’s understandable that a person, such as Sleeper, who holds great ties with Yale would want the university to take action when their reputation is threatened and their ethics taken into question. Especially if the situation was brought on by another Yale affiliate, but was Zakaria’s tiny error really the sort of thing that causes that? Another Huffington Post reader, Ken H., doesn’t seem to think so in his comment on the matter. Ken writes, “One can make a mistake without that mistake reaching the threshold for plagiarism. I read what he wrote as well as the source that he had allegedly plagiarized and — to my ears at least — they were nothing more than slightly similar in syntactic structure and even less so in vocabulary. I was, in fact, a bit surprised that anyone would have even used them to even suspect him. My guess is that someone — or “someone’s” just doesn’t like him or his opinions.” Sleeper comes off in his article so cruel and bitter as though he was in a complete outrage over the tedious mistake. If Sleeper didn’t already come off harsh to begin with, the article seemed even more so when just two months later Zakaria was cleared by both TIME and CNN.

   The Huffington Post reported that TIME announced that “Upon investigating Zakaria’s columns, it was determined that the transgression was an unintentional error and an isolated incident. We have completed a thorough review of each of Fareed Zakaria’s columns for TIME, and we are entirely satisfied that the language in question in his recent column was an unintentional error and an isolated incident for which he has apologized.” That particular Huffington Post article had many readers commenting on behalf of Zakaria. One reader, going by the username of Darwincrat commented:

For everyone that was ready to crucify the man without knowing whether or not the plagiarism was intentional, there you go. Glad to see Zakaria vindicated. It was a mistake, but not an intentional one. But I’m sure there will still be those sanctimonious finger-wagers who, of course, have never ever made any mistakes in their professional lives and have dismissed the man outright. (“Fareed Zakaria Cleared By Time, CNN In Plagiarism Investigation”)

       That comment was right on track with exactly what needed to be told to Jim Sleeper. Unfortunately, regardless of Zakaria’s clearance, Jim Sleeper gets what he so badly wanted when only days later Fareed Zakaria resigned from Yale’s governing board. Perhaps Jim Sleeper will join the board and show Zakaria how it’s really done, but until he does it might be in his better interest to keep the ranting to a minimum, because it looks like his opinions might be worse than it looks.

Works Cited

Coscarelli, Joe. “Fareed Zakaria Plagiarized Because He Is Old-Fashioned and a New Breed.” Daily Intelligencer. Nymag.com, 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Fung, Katherine. “Fareed Zakaria Cleared By Time, CNN In Plagiarism Investigation.” Daily Intelligencer. Huffingtonpost.com, 16 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Goldberg, Adam. “Fareed Zakaria Resigns From Yale University’s Governing Board.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Graham, Tim. “Time, CNN Star Fareed Zakaria Suspended for Admitted Plagiarism.” Newsbusters.org. NewsBusters, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

Sleeper, Jim. “Fareed Zakaria’s Plagiarism: Even Worse Than It Looks.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Plagiarize and Die

Posted: February 4, 2014 in Uncategorized

Jim Sleeper, A lecturer in Political Science at Yale University recently wrote an article entitled “Fareed Zakaria’s Plagiarism: Even Worse Than It Looks”. It was an article written in response to the public apology given by Fareed Zakaria, A CNN star and a writer featured in Time Magazine. Fareed Zakaria was apologizing for trying to pass off Jill Lepore’s work from an article she wrote for The New Yorker as work of his own. Jim Sleeper quoted Alexander Abad-Santos, an Atlantic Wire reporter, who said “Zakaria committed egregious plagiarism”. Sleeper goes on to say that he doesn’t believe the offense ended there. Sleeper says that Zakaria is a trustee of Yale, which is a school known for having extremely strict rules about plagiarism and suspends or expels students when they commit something even remotely similar to that of which Zakaria was guilty of doing. Sleeper believes that Zakaria should be held to the same standards that Yale holds their own students to and Zakaria should have to take leave or resign. Sleeper wrote he was even more stunned that Lepore, the author whose work was stolen by Zakaria, is even a Yale PHD herself and that Zakaria, if anyone, should surely know what it means to steal someone else’s work seeing as to how he does have a PHD from Harvard. Sleeper also suggest the possibility that perhaps Zakaria fobbed his Time Magazine article to an assistant or intern from Yale and failed to proof read it properly before letting it run under his byline in time. Although Sleeper accepts the possibility as a plausible theory, he makes sure to add that even if that were the case, Zakaria still couldn’t put the blame on anyone else but himself. Therefore, Sleeper continues, “he has issued his clipped but “unreserved” apology to Lepore”. Sleeper goes on to criticize Zakaria by saying he “has a bad habit of resorting to elitists” and that he has “snarky put-downs of his critics”. Sleeper ends his article by really cutting into Zakaria. Other than saying Zakaria should apologize to Yale, he also bluntly writes, “As long as he remains a Yale trustee, he will remain a sad example of Yale’s own transformation from a crucible of civic-republican leadership for America and the world into a global career-networking center and cultural galleria for a new elite that answers to no polity or moral code and that aggrandizes itself by plucking the fruits of others’ work.”

When Tim Graham of News Busters wrote about the story in his informative article, he included a paragraph from Zakaria’s Time article as well as a paragraph from Lepore’s New Yorker article for comparison and analysis. Zakaria’s paragraph read: Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

And Lepore’s paragraph read: As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.” The two entries do look extremely similar to say the least.

Plagiarism is defined as the act of using another person’s words or ideas without giving credit to that person. While I can’t argue that Fareed Zakaria didn’t by definition plagiarize Lepore’s work, I still find Jim Sleeper’s opinions to be both harsh and possibly bias. After all Jim Sleeper was himself an employee of Yale University and mentions often in his article how much Zakaria makes Yale look bad. If Yale gets a bad reputation that includes all involved at Yale, including lecturers such as Jim Sleeper himself. Sleeper’s article is nothing more than a conflict of interest when writing so boldly about a fellow Yale employee. Sleeper mentions his personal negative feelings toward Zakaria as well as publicly putting down the very institute that he not only works for, but accuses Zakaria for making it look bad. Fareed Zakaria did plagiarize, but I don’t agree with Jim Sleeper’s idea that Zakaria should take leave or resign and Yale should enforce that. Zakaria acknowledged his error, publicly apologized for his wrong doing, and naturally his writing reputation is damaged. Zakaria was also suspended by Time Magazine and CNN. Zakaria will be used as a prime example of plagiarism in the schools and work places all over the nation.

As far as Zakaria making Yale look bad, I also disagree. Yale didn’t make or teach Zakaria to plagiarize nor did the school condone it in the aftermath. Jim Sleeper, however, did a fine job in bringing even more negative attention towards Yale. A lecturer at Yale bad mouthing the institution as well as a fellow Yale employee in such a harsh public matter couldn’t possibly be making the school look better. In fact I believe Sleeper revealed an institution that has a Political Science lecturer that thinks you should be nailed to a cross for bad journalism. It seems Jim Sleeper thinks highly of himself. If Sleeper wanted to voice his seemingly hostile opinion so publicly, he should have resigned from the university prior to his publication.

Works Cited
Graham, Tim. “Time, CNN Star Fareed Zakaria Suspended for Admitted Plagiarism.” Newsbusters.org, 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 3 Feb.
2014.

Sleeper, Jim. “Fareed Zakaria’s Plagiarism: Even Worse than It Looks.” HuffPost Media. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 10 Aug. 2012. Web. 3 Feb. 2014.