Ellis Orozco
English 4
December 18, 2008
How did you improve your lead-in to make it more interesting?
According to the feedback I got from my classmates I got the sense that they thought my lead-in was good at grabbing the audience and was interesting. I decided to leave it as is. The only thing I changed was making it a little more condensed.
How did you revise your thesis to make it more focused?
My thesis only needed more facts to support it. I feel that was the main reason that it seemed weak. I looked over it again and again trying to figure out what I could add or take away to make it better. I ended up just leaving it as is, but I added more facts in the body to make it more convincing and strong.
How did you improve the organization of your essay so that it made more sense logically and flowed better?
I had to read and re-read my essay numerous times to try and discover ways to make my essay flow more logically and with ease. I ended up moving one of my body paragraphs to the end because I felt it did a better job at summarizing the essay. As opposed to where I had it, which I felt only confused the reader.
How did you improve your use of transitions to help connect ideas for your reader?
With regards to my transitions I didn’t really pay that much attention, at first, because I try to make my paragraphs link naturally. This however, wasn’t a good system because I found myself just writing one paragraph then another, then I tried to read through it and it didn’t flow very smoothly. So, I took away some of the sentences that I had at the beginning of new paragraphs then tweaked them slightly so that everything was smooth and natural.
How did your improve your use of example? Why did you choose the examples you did? Why is this important to helping your audience understand your points?
In my original essay I had some really good examples, but I didn’t elaborate enough on them for it to be perfect. With this in mind, I went back and did a little more research so that my examples were well researched and detailed. I also added some material from a book I just read(Feed). This allowed me to add some good material that was relevant to the prompt. It is important to add well researched examples because you are trying to talk about a subject that not many people know about so you are their teacher in a sense.
Where in your essay did you expand on your analysis and explanations? How did you keep your audience in mind as you added more explanation? I expanded on practically every body paragraph by adding more examples and concrete details. I beefed up my conclusion by restating my thesis to remind the reader the purpose of writing the essay. To make sure my audience would be able to understand what I was saying I automatically assumed my audience didn’t know anything. I explained everything in detail.
How did you improve your outside sources? Why is it important to smoothly incorporate outside material instead of just dropping it in?
I found out through my many drafts that by simply dropping quotes and facts into an essay it doesn’t make it better just slightly more confusing and unclear. I found that if you have fewer more meaningful quotes it is better than a bunch that aren’t directly correlated. I added sentences that lead up to the quotes so that it sounds a lot more natural coming out.
Where in your essay did you improve on word choice or grammar? Why is this important to creating an effective essay?
I had too many examples to highlight where I changed my grammar and word choice. I read over my essay so many times and with each time I read it I discovered another word misspelled or placed. I had to do some tweaking to the essay in order to make the words fit and sound a lot nicer.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Power Of Words
Ellis Orozco
English 4
December 18th, 2008
The Power Of Words
The freedom of speech, our first amendment right, is held so near and dear to many Americans. It allows us to speak freely of each other and of those from other countries. According to Haid Bosmajian, many people don’t realize the true power behind words and the context in which they are used. He believes that they are quite oftenly used to dehumanize a certain enemy we may be at war with, so that the killings will seem less cruel and heartless. He states that there are many different means of using words to dehumanize people; the most popular by the use of metaphors or “jokes.” After further consideration of the point Bosmajian is trying to make, I realized he was right. For example, regarding this war we are fighting in Iraq, President Bush often refers to Al-Queda as “evil” which in a sense may be correct. However, when he constantly reiterates that phrase, he instills this image in the minds of many Americans that they are “evil” or a threat and that something needs to be done. It is shocking how much power and weight words carry. They are, and have been, the tools used by dictators, presidents and even the common people; sometimes with irrevocable consequences.
There are many cases throughout history in which words have been used to manipulate large populations of people can convince them to give in to what leaders want them to believe. When the Spaniards came to America and saw the Indians, they immediately began labeling them as savages or barbarians. The Spaniards did this because they were trying to conquer land. By labeling the Indians savages, there is this immediate negative reaction from the rest of the world. A collective mindset is created which makes them believe it’s ok to kill the Indians because they are just savages. People from Spain and other countries become convinced the Indians aren’t civilized like them, or they don’t have feelings like they do. By using metaphors to compare people to something horrible, Bosmijian believes leaders or dictators are able to affect, “people’s conceptual systems and though process, influencing how they perceive others and determine their political views and behavior.” This can be related to a smaller form of brain washing because leaders are able to thwart people’s opinion about others with words. For example, to seek support of Americans, President Reagan constantly referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” threatening Americans lives. The Soviets were “not good” and didn’t care about anyone but themselves. Reagan promoted the idea that Americans want to be the guys who promote good. So, by putting a stop to this “Soviet cancer,” Americans are the good guys and are bettering the world.
This reminds me of a book I read called Feed. The basic premise of the book is that there are these kids that become so obsessed with trying to be “hip” or “cool” that they are willing to harm themselves and completely change their image into someone they are not. One of the main characters tries to heighten the kids’ awareness of how the media was trying to get them to conform to the image they want. Her comments are oftenly thrown to the side because people view her as crazy for trying to fight against “the Feed” and advertisers. The Feed allows people to access the Internet with far greater ease and it gives people the ability to store large amounts of information, so you can access it later. Many of the other kids are so obsessed with the “good” the Feed can do that they fail to realize that the advertisers behind the Feed who provide them with helpful hints are really trying to get the teens to buy their products. This creates an unhealthy and unseen bond between the kids and advertisers. Now, the advertisers know they can manipulate the teens to buy any product produced by any given corporation. This led them to become not “better people, but better consumers.” This quote really stuck with me because after further consideration I realized that advertisers did indeed take away their (and our) individualism and replaced it with this mindless need to buy the next big product whether it be an iPod or cell phone to boost our own egos. Take for example the iPod, Apple’s biggest success. Ipods are portrayed as these incredible products that “everyone” is buying and that you should buy one of them because it will allow you to associate yourself with this group of “cool” kids that own this hot product. When Apple began putting the iTouch on the market it was one of the first few touch screen products. Many other corporations took note of this and realized it was a huge sell. Now, Verizon Wireless (cell phone company) has a cell phone that uses touch screen technology. In addition, there is now a computer monitor that uses this very technology. Advertisers take note of products that sell in big numbers then they create “new” products that incorporate the tactics that allowed the other products to be so successful. They then use words like this product is “new” or “improved” so they get into people’s minds and make them think, “well, if the first touch screen products were good, imagine how great these new and improved ones are.” This leads people into this false notion that they are buying a “new” hot product when really advertisers are re-selling a previously hot product.
Americans don’t necessarily realize how much advertisements and T.V in general govern our lives. For most of us, it has influenced how we dress, and interact with others. This is because advertisers know how to manipulate simple words to their benefit. They can get inside of us and create an unnecessary want for something. It is because they are able to play with words that they have gained such a hold over us. Consumers need to analyze advertisements carefully to learn the true intent of advertisers. We need to be able to realize when we are being lured by these seductive or “weasel” words. Weasel words get their name from what weasels do to eggs, which is sucking out the yolk and leaving the shell. When we refer to “weasel” words we mean words that are hollow or carry no true meaning. For instance, when advertisers say their product will keep you virtually safe from intruders, or their pill will keep you “virtually one-hundred percent safe from becoming pregnant.” They completely change the meaning of the word, and change it to fit their needs. This is yet another example of how advertisers are able to manipulate language to sell their product.
I find it appalling that our own leaders are willing to dehumanize someone just to seek the support of the American people. It is incredible how simple words like “evil” or “cancer,” when put into different contexts, carries completely different meanings. It is scary how manipulative people can be, just by the words they chose to use. As we develop a higher level education and get exposed to new material we learn new ways to express ourselves, whether it be verbally or in written form. As we develop this higher level of vocabulary we have to make sure we are thoroughly thinking things through for we have seen what happens when words get taken out of one context and placed into another.
English 4
December 18th, 2008
The Power Of Words
The freedom of speech, our first amendment right, is held so near and dear to many Americans. It allows us to speak freely of each other and of those from other countries. According to Haid Bosmajian, many people don’t realize the true power behind words and the context in which they are used. He believes that they are quite oftenly used to dehumanize a certain enemy we may be at war with, so that the killings will seem less cruel and heartless. He states that there are many different means of using words to dehumanize people; the most popular by the use of metaphors or “jokes.” After further consideration of the point Bosmajian is trying to make, I realized he was right. For example, regarding this war we are fighting in Iraq, President Bush often refers to Al-Queda as “evil” which in a sense may be correct. However, when he constantly reiterates that phrase, he instills this image in the minds of many Americans that they are “evil” or a threat and that something needs to be done. It is shocking how much power and weight words carry. They are, and have been, the tools used by dictators, presidents and even the common people; sometimes with irrevocable consequences.
There are many cases throughout history in which words have been used to manipulate large populations of people can convince them to give in to what leaders want them to believe. When the Spaniards came to America and saw the Indians, they immediately began labeling them as savages or barbarians. The Spaniards did this because they were trying to conquer land. By labeling the Indians savages, there is this immediate negative reaction from the rest of the world. A collective mindset is created which makes them believe it’s ok to kill the Indians because they are just savages. People from Spain and other countries become convinced the Indians aren’t civilized like them, or they don’t have feelings like they do. By using metaphors to compare people to something horrible, Bosmijian believes leaders or dictators are able to affect, “people’s conceptual systems and though process, influencing how they perceive others and determine their political views and behavior.” This can be related to a smaller form of brain washing because leaders are able to thwart people’s opinion about others with words. For example, to seek support of Americans, President Reagan constantly referred to the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” threatening Americans lives. The Soviets were “not good” and didn’t care about anyone but themselves. Reagan promoted the idea that Americans want to be the guys who promote good. So, by putting a stop to this “Soviet cancer,” Americans are the good guys and are bettering the world.
This reminds me of a book I read called Feed. The basic premise of the book is that there are these kids that become so obsessed with trying to be “hip” or “cool” that they are willing to harm themselves and completely change their image into someone they are not. One of the main characters tries to heighten the kids’ awareness of how the media was trying to get them to conform to the image they want. Her comments are oftenly thrown to the side because people view her as crazy for trying to fight against “the Feed” and advertisers. The Feed allows people to access the Internet with far greater ease and it gives people the ability to store large amounts of information, so you can access it later. Many of the other kids are so obsessed with the “good” the Feed can do that they fail to realize that the advertisers behind the Feed who provide them with helpful hints are really trying to get the teens to buy their products. This creates an unhealthy and unseen bond between the kids and advertisers. Now, the advertisers know they can manipulate the teens to buy any product produced by any given corporation. This led them to become not “better people, but better consumers.” This quote really stuck with me because after further consideration I realized that advertisers did indeed take away their (and our) individualism and replaced it with this mindless need to buy the next big product whether it be an iPod or cell phone to boost our own egos. Take for example the iPod, Apple’s biggest success. Ipods are portrayed as these incredible products that “everyone” is buying and that you should buy one of them because it will allow you to associate yourself with this group of “cool” kids that own this hot product. When Apple began putting the iTouch on the market it was one of the first few touch screen products. Many other corporations took note of this and realized it was a huge sell. Now, Verizon Wireless (cell phone company) has a cell phone that uses touch screen technology. In addition, there is now a computer monitor that uses this very technology. Advertisers take note of products that sell in big numbers then they create “new” products that incorporate the tactics that allowed the other products to be so successful. They then use words like this product is “new” or “improved” so they get into people’s minds and make them think, “well, if the first touch screen products were good, imagine how great these new and improved ones are.” This leads people into this false notion that they are buying a “new” hot product when really advertisers are re-selling a previously hot product.
Americans don’t necessarily realize how much advertisements and T.V in general govern our lives. For most of us, it has influenced how we dress, and interact with others. This is because advertisers know how to manipulate simple words to their benefit. They can get inside of us and create an unnecessary want for something. It is because they are able to play with words that they have gained such a hold over us. Consumers need to analyze advertisements carefully to learn the true intent of advertisers. We need to be able to realize when we are being lured by these seductive or “weasel” words. Weasel words get their name from what weasels do to eggs, which is sucking out the yolk and leaving the shell. When we refer to “weasel” words we mean words that are hollow or carry no true meaning. For instance, when advertisers say their product will keep you virtually safe from intruders, or their pill will keep you “virtually one-hundred percent safe from becoming pregnant.” They completely change the meaning of the word, and change it to fit their needs. This is yet another example of how advertisers are able to manipulate language to sell their product.
I find it appalling that our own leaders are willing to dehumanize someone just to seek the support of the American people. It is incredible how simple words like “evil” or “cancer,” when put into different contexts, carries completely different meanings. It is scary how manipulative people can be, just by the words they chose to use. As we develop a higher level education and get exposed to new material we learn new ways to express ourselves, whether it be verbally or in written form. As we develop this higher level of vocabulary we have to make sure we are thoroughly thinking things through for we have seen what happens when words get taken out of one context and placed into another.
FEED Response (2 page reflection)
Ellis Orozco
English 4
December 15, 2008
Feed Response
Feed is a story about love, and the influence the media has over people. It is a story about a girl who lives outside the “norm” she, unlike every other teen, is obsessed with knowledge and trying to exploit how the media tries to get people to conform to their idea of what is cool. The author, did a good job at getting the message across that teens are so obsessed with becoming the next best thing that they don’t realize that they are being manipulated to become what big corporations want them to be. There is a quote in the book that goes, “the media makes us better consumers, not people.” This couldn’t be truer. I too like many teens have fallen into the trap that advertisers set up, that being that if you buy their product you will be “cool” or “hip.”
Feed has in a sense opened my eyes and reassured an assumption I already had. That the media is constantly trying to get everyone, teens in particular, (because they are the easiest to manipulate) to give in to what they want. To get them to buy an iPod or cell phone that will make them a “cool” person or part of the norm. That by listening to a specific type of music you will be able to “fit in” with a specific group of kids. The media has completely taken away individuality. It has kept people from truly being who they want to be because they see all these other people buying a product so they want to too.
The basic message behind Feed is don’t be like the many people who have become obsessed with being the next best thing. Just because a product is promoted more than another doesn’t necessarily make it better. I think the author M. T Anderson wants us to be just smart buyers. Don’t be afraid to buy something just because it may make you look weird or it may make you and outcast. Don’t be afraid to break away from the norm. Live life the way you want to not the way others do.
I would highly recommend this book to people of all ages. It is a fascinating read about what happens when people give up their individualism to be “cool.” This book does a good job at exploiting the harm that comes when people become obsessed with their appearance and how others will perceive them.
One character that I really liked was Violet, I could in a sense relate to her because throughout the book she was trying so hard to fit in and be normal like Titus’s friends even though she was not like them. I feel as though at times I try to hard to fit in with groups of people. Feed has inspired me to be the person I want to and to not be afraid to do what I feel is right and not what society feels is right. I am inspired to be an individual not someone who conforms to what others expect.
English 4
December 15, 2008
Feed Response
Feed is a story about love, and the influence the media has over people. It is a story about a girl who lives outside the “norm” she, unlike every other teen, is obsessed with knowledge and trying to exploit how the media tries to get people to conform to their idea of what is cool. The author, did a good job at getting the message across that teens are so obsessed with becoming the next best thing that they don’t realize that they are being manipulated to become what big corporations want them to be. There is a quote in the book that goes, “the media makes us better consumers, not people.” This couldn’t be truer. I too like many teens have fallen into the trap that advertisers set up, that being that if you buy their product you will be “cool” or “hip.”
Feed has in a sense opened my eyes and reassured an assumption I already had. That the media is constantly trying to get everyone, teens in particular, (because they are the easiest to manipulate) to give in to what they want. To get them to buy an iPod or cell phone that will make them a “cool” person or part of the norm. That by listening to a specific type of music you will be able to “fit in” with a specific group of kids. The media has completely taken away individuality. It has kept people from truly being who they want to be because they see all these other people buying a product so they want to too.
The basic message behind Feed is don’t be like the many people who have become obsessed with being the next best thing. Just because a product is promoted more than another doesn’t necessarily make it better. I think the author M. T Anderson wants us to be just smart buyers. Don’t be afraid to buy something just because it may make you look weird or it may make you and outcast. Don’t be afraid to break away from the norm. Live life the way you want to not the way others do.
I would highly recommend this book to people of all ages. It is a fascinating read about what happens when people give up their individualism to be “cool.” This book does a good job at exploiting the harm that comes when people become obsessed with their appearance and how others will perceive them.
One character that I really liked was Violet, I could in a sense relate to her because throughout the book she was trying so hard to fit in and be normal like Titus’s friends even though she was not like them. I feel as though at times I try to hard to fit in with groups of people. Feed has inspired me to be the person I want to and to not be afraid to do what I feel is right and not what society feels is right. I am inspired to be an individual not someone who conforms to what others expect.
1984 Ending
Ellis Orozco
Literary Questions October 13th
I was very dissatisfied with the ending of this novel. I was expecting Winston to escape, find Julia and together they would lead their own resistance against the government and take down Big Brother. I was hoping for the last few pages that O’Brian was going to set Winston free and tell him the secret to taking down Big Brother, Winston changed from being a skeptical person with regards to the government, For example. He would question it and he’d be able to spot the flaws in the system. To at the end of the book he does a complete spin around and ends up giving in to Big Brother where he becomes one of the people who just believe what is said and doesn’t take the time to think critically about things. This novel is considered a dystopian novel because it is exactly the opposite of what a utopia would be. For example, in utopia’s it’s supposed to be this happy place where things are all harmonious. Then in 1984, there is no true happiness the citizens are forced to believe what the government feeds to them; there is no sense of freedom.
Literary Questions October 13th
I was very dissatisfied with the ending of this novel. I was expecting Winston to escape, find Julia and together they would lead their own resistance against the government and take down Big Brother. I was hoping for the last few pages that O’Brian was going to set Winston free and tell him the secret to taking down Big Brother, Winston changed from being a skeptical person with regards to the government, For example. He would question it and he’d be able to spot the flaws in the system. To at the end of the book he does a complete spin around and ends up giving in to Big Brother where he becomes one of the people who just believe what is said and doesn’t take the time to think critically about things. This novel is considered a dystopian novel because it is exactly the opposite of what a utopia would be. For example, in utopia’s it’s supposed to be this happy place where things are all harmonious. Then in 1984, there is no true happiness the citizens are forced to believe what the government feeds to them; there is no sense of freedom.
1984
Ellis Orozco
Literary Response Answers: Sept. 29,2008
Winston’s world Oceania is a sick place in the sense that the Government has taking complete control over their citizen’s thoughts, rights and opinions. The government plays such a huge influence that they can make things that happened in history be forgotten and have the citizens believe it. The have the ability to take away the rights that we nowadays take for granted. They literally brainwash their citizens into hailing the power of Big Brother whether the people want to or not. They are forced to be cautious of every word they say because it could be recorded by cameras within their houses and then handed over to the thought police. The thought police then come to their houses and take them away, what happens next is not entirely sure just that they “disappear”, that all records of them being there are erased. In a sense this is similar to our world because in 1984 Big Brother shields his citizens from the truth because the papers, books or any other form of media get censored. This is much like nowadays where our media is censored, for example the news is prohibited to publish certain stories based on presidential demand or through people working for the pres. So far it seems as though Winston is a bit of an odd ball. He tends to go against the grain and be the one who is different from the norm. In a sense I admire Winston for having the courage to break the law of trying to keep records of the Big Brother era by means of a diary. On the other hand, I am sickened by the fact that he and O’Brian are at the two minute hate and they instead of speaking out and saying they dislike Big Brother they give in and become one of the people who “worship” Big Brother. So far I dislike the fact that the government officials in 1984 (thought Police, Big Brother) have literally a constant eye on their citizens in their homes, even though most people go too their home for peace, solitude, and privacy, by means of the cameras and recording equipment mounted in the houses. Other than that I am thoroughly enjoying 1984.
Literary Response Answers: Sept. 29,2008
Winston’s world Oceania is a sick place in the sense that the Government has taking complete control over their citizen’s thoughts, rights and opinions. The government plays such a huge influence that they can make things that happened in history be forgotten and have the citizens believe it. The have the ability to take away the rights that we nowadays take for granted. They literally brainwash their citizens into hailing the power of Big Brother whether the people want to or not. They are forced to be cautious of every word they say because it could be recorded by cameras within their houses and then handed over to the thought police. The thought police then come to their houses and take them away, what happens next is not entirely sure just that they “disappear”, that all records of them being there are erased. In a sense this is similar to our world because in 1984 Big Brother shields his citizens from the truth because the papers, books or any other form of media get censored. This is much like nowadays where our media is censored, for example the news is prohibited to publish certain stories based on presidential demand or through people working for the pres. So far it seems as though Winston is a bit of an odd ball. He tends to go against the grain and be the one who is different from the norm. In a sense I admire Winston for having the courage to break the law of trying to keep records of the Big Brother era by means of a diary. On the other hand, I am sickened by the fact that he and O’Brian are at the two minute hate and they instead of speaking out and saying they dislike Big Brother they give in and become one of the people who “worship” Big Brother. So far I dislike the fact that the government officials in 1984 (thought Police, Big Brother) have literally a constant eye on their citizens in their homes, even though most people go too their home for peace, solitude, and privacy, by means of the cameras and recording equipment mounted in the houses. Other than that I am thoroughly enjoying 1984.
Essay Three
Ellis Orozco
December 11, 2008
Saving Sharks
Saving Sharks
Sharks are one of the most feared creatures in the ocean. They are one of the biggest predators in the ocean and a big reason many American’s refuse to dive into the blue wonder of the sea. Yet they are incredibly vulnerable. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, about one billion pounds of shark per year are fished (Handwerk). In addition, many sharks get tangled up in fishing nets that are carelessly left behind by fishers. They are also fished in places like the United States and Costa Rica for their and fins (which are shipped to China) and then returned to the ocean finless. This leads to a slow, painful death because other sharks will feast upon them or they end up dying due to starvation because they can’t swim. Many people don’t want to help the sharks because they are most likely a) scared that they will be eaten by them. Which is a foolish reason not to help because you run a greater risk of being hit by lightning or getting into a crash while drive to and from the beach.
The over fishing of shark for their fins and meat first began in 1986 when tuna and swordfish supplies started to plummet. In a panic, fishers resorted to fishing for shark. As a result, between 1986-1987, the amount of shark fished in Florida (which is only one state where shark is fished) doubled. Another contributing factor was the high demand coming from The Republic of China because they use it in a soup. It is considered a delicacy in China and sells for a near ten dollars per pound. Hong Kong consumes three million kilograms of shark per year which roughly equals about six million six hundred thousand pounds of shark. That is a lot of shark. Types of sharks most often fished for their fins include, but are no limited to sandbar, bull, hammerhead, blacktip, porbeagle, mako, thresher, and blue. It is said that due to this live-fining about 100-200 million shark die per year. This inhumane act has led to the near extinction of mako, elephant fish, lemon shark, hammerheads and great whites. This is extremely disturbing due to the fact that sharks have a very long gestation period, roughly about 22 months. Many people aren’t aware that once a species is close to extinction it could take decades to revive it. This revival takes a coordinated effort many individuals, as well as time, to increase a species chance for survival.
Sharks are crucial to the oceanic environment and to our own. They consume all sick and or diseased fish. So, in a sense protect other fishes from disease. They also help with population control. For example, there was a case in Australia where the number of lobster spiked up largely. This was because the number of Hammerhead shark in the area had greatly decreased thus leading to an increase in lobster because that it what they normally consume. Finally, sharks have opened many new door in the field of science. Scientist have long studied shark to try to solve some of lives many problems. For exaple, sharks can’t get cancer. Scientist are currently studying how this happens. Then they are going to try to apply it to humans. They can’t achieve this if we keep killing sharks off at this alarming rate.
Now, I want to focus specifically on China. They consume about 85 percent of the total world shark business. Dried food sellers can be found proudly displaying the shark fins in China. In China, when you serve shark fin soup to your visitors, it is viewed as though you are very wealthy and or powerful. It is a sign of status. Shark’s fin soup is said to be served at banquets, weddings and other get-togethers. On top of this they are purposefully asking the fishers to get the fins from rare or endangered sharks because it makes you seem more exotic because you can afford to eat a soup that is made with a shark not everyone knows about. What is worse is the fact that the shark fin itself has no flavor whatsoever it is just the gelatinous taste of the cartilage that people want. So we are technically killing off millions of sharks for something that carries no flavor whatsoever and is just quite simply a gelatinous feel that people like. I believe our scientists and those of China, working together, can quite easily find an artificial substance that could replace the shark fins. It is very sad to know that the government of Costa Rica went through the trouble to enact a law that doesn’t allow fishers to get within three-mile radius of a specific island that is known to have sharks and yet they won’t enforce it.
Currently, fishers can take the fins of sharks if the fin weighs five percent of the total body weight, it has been proposed a few times that they up that percent to 6.5 percent. I wanted to write a letter to Congress asking them to up this percent for how much the fin must weight in proportion to the body weight and enforce this law once it is passed. With any luck I am hoping that Costa Rica will follow our example. This can lead to a reduction in the amount of shark live-finned and tossed back into the ocean.
In addition to the letter I want to write I was thinking about starting a non-profit whose many goal and purpose is to inform the public about what sort of cruelty goes into the fishing of shark for their fins or the consequences of not managing where you lay down fishing and not picking them up. I simply want to provide people with facts and hope that they chose to do the right thing in my eyes. Which is simply taking an active role in saving the sharks from being finned for a “luxury” food.
Works Cited
Confidential Reporter. "China Confidential." 30 June, 2005. 5 December 2008
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2005/06/disney-shark-fin-debate-highlights.html.
Handwerk, Brian. "Sharks Falling Prey To Humans' Appetites." National
Geographic. June 3, 2003. 7 Dec 2008 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0603_020603_shark1.html.
"Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act." NOAA
Fisheries. December 19, 1996. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag3a.html#s309.
"Shark Trade and Environment Database." TED Case Studies. January 11, 1997.
Trade Environment Database. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.american.edu/ted/SHARK.HTM.
Workman, Daniel. "Illegal Shark Fin Fishing." Suite101. 9 April 2007. 11 Dec
2008 http://world-trade-organization.suite101.com/article.cfm/illegal_shark_fin_fishing.
December 11, 2008
Saving Sharks
Saving Sharks
Sharks are one of the most feared creatures in the ocean. They are one of the biggest predators in the ocean and a big reason many American’s refuse to dive into the blue wonder of the sea. Yet they are incredibly vulnerable. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, about one billion pounds of shark per year are fished (Handwerk). In addition, many sharks get tangled up in fishing nets that are carelessly left behind by fishers. They are also fished in places like the United States and Costa Rica for their and fins (which are shipped to China) and then returned to the ocean finless. This leads to a slow, painful death because other sharks will feast upon them or they end up dying due to starvation because they can’t swim. Many people don’t want to help the sharks because they are most likely a) scared that they will be eaten by them. Which is a foolish reason not to help because you run a greater risk of being hit by lightning or getting into a crash while drive to and from the beach.
The over fishing of shark for their fins and meat first began in 1986 when tuna and swordfish supplies started to plummet. In a panic, fishers resorted to fishing for shark. As a result, between 1986-1987, the amount of shark fished in Florida (which is only one state where shark is fished) doubled. Another contributing factor was the high demand coming from The Republic of China because they use it in a soup. It is considered a delicacy in China and sells for a near ten dollars per pound. Hong Kong consumes three million kilograms of shark per year which roughly equals about six million six hundred thousand pounds of shark. That is a lot of shark. Types of sharks most often fished for their fins include, but are no limited to sandbar, bull, hammerhead, blacktip, porbeagle, mako, thresher, and blue. It is said that due to this live-fining about 100-200 million shark die per year. This inhumane act has led to the near extinction of mako, elephant fish, lemon shark, hammerheads and great whites. This is extremely disturbing due to the fact that sharks have a very long gestation period, roughly about 22 months. Many people aren’t aware that once a species is close to extinction it could take decades to revive it. This revival takes a coordinated effort many individuals, as well as time, to increase a species chance for survival.
Sharks are crucial to the oceanic environment and to our own. They consume all sick and or diseased fish. So, in a sense protect other fishes from disease. They also help with population control. For example, there was a case in Australia where the number of lobster spiked up largely. This was because the number of Hammerhead shark in the area had greatly decreased thus leading to an increase in lobster because that it what they normally consume. Finally, sharks have opened many new door in the field of science. Scientist have long studied shark to try to solve some of lives many problems. For exaple, sharks can’t get cancer. Scientist are currently studying how this happens. Then they are going to try to apply it to humans. They can’t achieve this if we keep killing sharks off at this alarming rate.
Now, I want to focus specifically on China. They consume about 85 percent of the total world shark business. Dried food sellers can be found proudly displaying the shark fins in China. In China, when you serve shark fin soup to your visitors, it is viewed as though you are very wealthy and or powerful. It is a sign of status. Shark’s fin soup is said to be served at banquets, weddings and other get-togethers. On top of this they are purposefully asking the fishers to get the fins from rare or endangered sharks because it makes you seem more exotic because you can afford to eat a soup that is made with a shark not everyone knows about. What is worse is the fact that the shark fin itself has no flavor whatsoever it is just the gelatinous taste of the cartilage that people want. So we are technically killing off millions of sharks for something that carries no flavor whatsoever and is just quite simply a gelatinous feel that people like. I believe our scientists and those of China, working together, can quite easily find an artificial substance that could replace the shark fins. It is very sad to know that the government of Costa Rica went through the trouble to enact a law that doesn’t allow fishers to get within three-mile radius of a specific island that is known to have sharks and yet they won’t enforce it.
Currently, fishers can take the fins of sharks if the fin weighs five percent of the total body weight, it has been proposed a few times that they up that percent to 6.5 percent. I wanted to write a letter to Congress asking them to up this percent for how much the fin must weight in proportion to the body weight and enforce this law once it is passed. With any luck I am hoping that Costa Rica will follow our example. This can lead to a reduction in the amount of shark live-finned and tossed back into the ocean.
In addition to the letter I want to write I was thinking about starting a non-profit whose many goal and purpose is to inform the public about what sort of cruelty goes into the fishing of shark for their fins or the consequences of not managing where you lay down fishing and not picking them up. I simply want to provide people with facts and hope that they chose to do the right thing in my eyes. Which is simply taking an active role in saving the sharks from being finned for a “luxury” food.
Works Cited
Confidential Reporter. "China Confidential." 30 June, 2005. 5 December 2008
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2005/06/disney-shark-fin-debate-highlights.html.
Handwerk, Brian. "Sharks Falling Prey To Humans' Appetites." National
Geographic. June 3, 2003. 7 Dec 2008 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0603_020603_shark1.html.
"Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act." NOAA
Fisheries. December 19, 1996. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag3a.html#s309.
"Shark Trade and Environment Database." TED Case Studies. January 11, 1997.
Trade Environment Database. 7 Dec 2008 http://www.american.edu/ted/SHARK.HTM.
Workman, Daniel. "Illegal Shark Fin Fishing." Suite101. 9 April 2007. 11 Dec
2008 http://world-trade-organization.suite101.com/article.cfm/illegal_shark_fin_fishing.
Pamphlet
Pros
• Can relay less heavily on foreign oil
• The oil obtained can be used for emergency reserves during critical oil shortages
• It would only take two years to establish the platforms offshore
• Drilling would stimulate the oil economy and supplement American reserves
Cons
• The oil gained offshore would not be enough to affect the global oil economy and lower gasoline prices
• Would disrupt undersea life, killing marine animals
• Offshore rigs produce chemicals when drilling that could stay in the ocean for up to forty years
• Drilling would delay alternative energy research and development
“3/11/05 Arctic Refuge: A vote to include language in the Senate Budget resolution that counted revenue from oil and gas leasing and drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.”
Obama: Voted Green
McCain: Voted anti-green
McCain: McCain believes that if America drills offshore it can reduce its need for foreign oil.
Obama: Obama believes that oil companies should either drill in the sixty-nine million acres available or completely abandon the concept of drilling. He believes that drilling for offshore oil will not free the nation from its energy crisis.
Ellis Orozco, Jon-Luc Clark, Nick Santiago, Mark Hargrove
• Can relay less heavily on foreign oil
• The oil obtained can be used for emergency reserves during critical oil shortages
• It would only take two years to establish the platforms offshore
• Drilling would stimulate the oil economy and supplement American reserves
Cons
• The oil gained offshore would not be enough to affect the global oil economy and lower gasoline prices
• Would disrupt undersea life, killing marine animals
• Offshore rigs produce chemicals when drilling that could stay in the ocean for up to forty years
• Drilling would delay alternative energy research and development
“3/11/05 Arctic Refuge: A vote to include language in the Senate Budget resolution that counted revenue from oil and gas leasing and drilling in the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge.”
Obama: Voted Green
McCain: Voted anti-green
McCain: McCain believes that if America drills offshore it can reduce its need for foreign oil.
Obama: Obama believes that oil companies should either drill in the sixty-nine million acres available or completely abandon the concept of drilling. He believes that drilling for offshore oil will not free the nation from its energy crisis.
Ellis Orozco, Jon-Luc Clark, Nick Santiago, Mark Hargrove
Election Project Description/reflection and Essay Two
The purpose of the election project was to expose us to the world of politics. I allowed us time to study all the different issues that the next President has to face. For instance, I researched one of the more controversial topics (offshore drilling). After that we were asked to create a non-biased pamphlet highlighting the pros and cons of drilling. Then we created a voter information night were we informed the public about all the different issues and how they could harm of benefit us.
I thoroughly enjoyed doing the research and presenting that this project required from me. It allowed me to get a taste of some political issues while not being overwhelmed because we were able to focus on one issue rather than trying to tackle every single issue. It was kinda cool that we were able to inform people about the different issues facing our country. It allowed us to truly test what we had learned.
Ellis Orozco
English 4, Team A
Persuasive Essay
October 16th, 2008
America’s Addiction
Oil. It flows throughout the veins of America. People commuting to and from school and work use it on a daily basis and it would be painful to do without it. However, nowadays it is the cause a different type of pain located in so many peoples’ wallets. Oil is used in cars, planes and it is burned on a daily basis to make things such as your toothbrushes, or any things made from plastic. It is currently viewed as a necessity but can we develop the technology to be able to move away from our dependence on oil? To put it in perspective in 2004 America was averaging 21 million barrels of oil per day. Out of that 14.5 percent of that 21 million barrels per day were imported from Saudi Arabia which equals about 3,045,00 barrels (Gibson). Considering the fact that the price for oil as of Friday October 10th was 77.70 dollars a barrel that adds up to about1, 631,700,00 dollars (Oil Price Fall). So we are technically giving them money so they can buy weapons to attack us. If we can develop the technology to create alternate fuel sources, we can reduce a huge amount of money that is exported out of our country. In the process, we can also reduce our negative impact of burning fossil fuels on the environment. If we can find a way to harness the natural resources around us (for example the energy from waves), we can truly become a “green” country devoted to positive environmental change.
Many politicians want to drill offshore for oil because they feel it will truly benefit our economy, offer an option to become less dependent on foreign oil resources and keep us from giving money to foreign countries.
It is a common belief with many lawmakers that offshore drilling will be able to decrease the price of oil. This is a false notion. If we were to drill all the available ocean shelf off America’s coast the amount of oil extracted would be only 3 percent of the global oil level this is not enough to have an impact on the nation wide price for gas. The only reason why prices have so drastically decreased is because oil companies are losing money because so many people are riding their bikes, walking and taking mass transit instead of driving their vehicles. So oil companies are striving to remain competitive. As soon we start drilling and get people to believe that offshore drilling will keep us from having to import oil, the price of oil will increase again. Consider the fact that if oil companies got “the green light” to drill, it would take up to ten years for them to obtain a permit to drill. By this time, we could develop the technology that would free us from our destructive need for oil. Think of the technical advances that we have had in the last ten years and what we are capable of doing. Additionally, if oil companies were able to get gas for over four dollars a gallon from other countries why would they want to sell it for less here? The oil businesses is a game of who can find the most oil and sell it for the most money regardless of the effect on the environment or citizen’s wallet.
It is well known that oil spills cause huge amounts of damage to the environment, and potentially people, if the oilrigs are close enough to another state. For instance, many people are hesitant about rigs being built off the shore of Louisiana due to the fact that if there were a spill it would go straight onto the shores of Florida. However, it isn’t just the spills that are a potential cause for alarm. It is also the chemicals that are unintentionally (or intentionally) released when oil workers try to separate the oil from the water that may have found its way in to the mix as the oil is drilled. These chemicals used to break the water away kill numerous amounts of plankton when leaked into the ocean. The chemicals leak into the ocean lead to a larger problem. Imagine that over the span of a decade, the amount of chemicals leaked doesn’t change and leaks continue killing plankton. This could lead to the reduction in fish populations because a lot of animals rely on plankton as their source of nutrition. To put it in perspective:
“For any spill, only 5-15% can be cleaned up. In addition, 97% of all the spills that occur, many are under 1,000 barrels. It is not required for these spills to be reported in the federal Oil Spill Risk Analysis, because their size is considered "small” (Donatoni)
To put an even greater emphasis on what drilling can do the marine ecosystem “For every well that is drilled, about 8,000 square feet can be covered by as much as a meter thick of drilling waste, which can remain in the environment for at least two years. If the mud were to get scattered, by a hurricane for example, the waste could ultimately last for as long as forty years (Donatoni)” The bottom line is clear: that the federal government is allowed to take the lives of marine life in order to set up oil rigs. For example, near the site of many rigs sea turtles pass through. When sea turtles make contact with the “weathered oil” they are unable to have babies they become infertile. Also, sea turtles are known to be attracted to light. So you can imagine what they would do once they come across this massive ball of light in the middle of the ocean. This poses a threat in more than one-way. It could a) cause the turtles to be lured in by the light created by the oil rigs, as a result, predator fish eats them; or b) they end up getting hurt by the drilling equipment (Donatoni). These creatures are a valuable asset to scientists studying the field of global warming because they are good indicators of significant changes in weather. For example, it has been proven that when it is warmer on the beaches (and world in general) the ground (or in this case sand) will get warmer. For sea turtles this could pose a problem because they bury their eggs into the sand. Unlike humans, the sex of the turtle is determined by how warm the sand around the buried eggs is. Recently scientists have discovered an increase in the number of female sea turtles being born. Since females are usually born when the back sand is warmer there is obviously a change going on in the global climate. The noise from the drilling could also harm many animals that use sound as a means of communication. For instance the whales and dolphins.
Once the oil is drilled, oil companies need to find a way to bring the oil back to shore for public consummation. The process of transporting oil to shore could result in more pollutants into the ocean due to the ships that would be used to transport the oil. Another possible method of oil transportation from the oilrigs offshore to consumers is running pipes underwater to the shore then try to pump it like that. If these pipes were to spring a leak imagine the damage it could cause to the ocean ecosystem.
Offshore drilling can have a huge negative impact on coral reefs. Currently we don’t have to worry too much about the ones that harbor huge numbers of fish and invertebrates off the coast of Florida and North Carolina because they are being protected by a federal moratorium that is due to stay in place until 2012. As soon as this date passes we have much to fear for the sea life in those corals. There is so much about these reefs and life on the reefs that we don’t know about. If we were to allow oil companies to drill, marine life that exists in coral reefs could vanish before we get the chance to learn about them. Another benefit that these reefs provide is some possible remedies for cancer and general anti-inflammatory. This is because the reefs are home to various different forms of life. Additional benefits that reefs provide include that these are a possible source of “calcium and up to 74 different other life enhancing minerals (Panse)” Scientists are able to extract the DNA from these corals and life on them and clone their genetic make-up to produce drugs such as “AZT, Ara-A, Ara-C, and Dolostatin 10. These drugs have been found to fight against AIDS, cancer, asthma and arthritis (Panse).” Coral reefs provide history of what has happened in the ocean, and physical evidence as to how reefs have managed ocean warming and how they might be able to handle the current conditions later on down the road.
Inspections are put in place to ensure the rigs won’t leak any toxins into the ocean. People who inspect these rigs are often not catching the small leaks on the rigs because there has been much evidence in the ocean of toxins being released from these rigs. In addition, the “code” (used lightly) for rigs to pass as “safe” was created nearly a decade ago (Nancy). In other words, they haven’t even bothered to update the criteria. Technically, the rigs could be “approved” to drill and barely meet the safety requirements to drill.
Investigations of ocean shelves that contain oil worth drilling require large amounts of money. An additional cost is included when oil companies apply to receive the permit to drill and the money needed to build the rigs. Instead this money could be invested in the creation of renewable resources. For example we could use this money to invest in ways to improve solar panels so they can become as close to 100% efficient as possible or develop alternative fuels that are easily accessible and have a minimal (or none at all) negative impact on the environment.
Offshore drilling is a hot topic that is constantly being debated amongst lawmakers and recently between presidential candidates. Support has varied from yes to no to a little bit because we can’t completely abandon the use of oil. Initially, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said he opposed offshore drilling. Recently, he switched his support from opposed to pro because he (along with Barack Obama) realize that this nation has become so hooked on oil that it would be next to impossible to just completely abandon the use of oil. He states that we should drill and invest in renewable energies. Unfortunately, the fact that America is hooked on oil is undeniable. If America had already been taking more steps toward a cleaner, greener nation we wouldn’t have to make these gigantic leaps because we would already have some technologies available to help us go from and oil nation to some sort of a renewable energy nation.
The issue of drilling is a combination of what is morally right and environmentally friendly. We don’t want to drill in these areas of sea where there is a heavy concentration of reefs, mammals, and plankton. Drilling will not benefit our economy enough to make it worth putting marine life at risk. I thoroughly support the idea of taking the money that would be invested into the drilling process and applying it to greener more environmentally friendly sources of energy.
Work Cited
Anonymous. "Offshore Drilling." Petroleum Topics: Offshore Drilling. World
Petroleum. 23 Sep 2008.
http://www.worlpetroleum.org/education/offdrill/index.html.
C. Brown, David. "Why We Should Drill Offshore." Marin Independent Journal.
18 August 2008. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_10235145?source=rss.
“Climate Change and Sea Turtles." Global Warming. 15 Oct 2008
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-change-and-sea-turtles.html.
Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan. "McCain takes a gamble with offshore
drilling plan." Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5. 11 October 2008 .
Donatoni, Matthew. "Offshore Drilling." 14 Oct 2008
http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/MDonatoni/ResearchPaper.htm
Gibson, Dick. "Some interesting oil industry statistics." Oil Industry Statistics
from Gibson Consulting. Gibson Consulting. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html.
"House Approves Offshore Drilling Bill." Environmental News Services. 9/13/08.
23 Sep 2008. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-17-092.asp.
McCain, John. "Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And
Production ." The Lexington Project. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top.
Nancy. "10 Reasons Why Offshore Drilling is a Bad Idea." Earth Action. 19
August 2008. 16 Oct 2008 http://www.earthaction.org/2008/08/10-reasons-why.html.
"Oil prices fall below $79 on profit-taking." MSNBC. 14 October 2008. The
Associated Press. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/.
Obama, Barack. "New Energy for America." Obama. 14 Oct 2008
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Panse, Sonal. "Medicines from the Coral Reef Ecosystem." Buzzle. 20 August
2004. 15 Oct 2008 http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-19-2004-58074.asp.
"Pickens: global oil production has reached its peak." Intel Daily. 01 March 2007.
14 Oct 2008 http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=154&a=1267.
"Santa Barbara Community Prosperity Energy Joint Venture." Arctic Oil. 18
August 2008. Arctic Oil & Gas Corporation. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.strategicnine.com/santa-barbara-energy-home.htm
"Think It Can't Happen Here?." Upwelling. March 2006. FMSA. 23 Sep 2008
http://www.farallones.org/e_newsletter/2006-03/Offshoredrillingplan.htm.
.
I thoroughly enjoyed doing the research and presenting that this project required from me. It allowed me to get a taste of some political issues while not being overwhelmed because we were able to focus on one issue rather than trying to tackle every single issue. It was kinda cool that we were able to inform people about the different issues facing our country. It allowed us to truly test what we had learned.
Ellis Orozco
English 4, Team A
Persuasive Essay
October 16th, 2008
America’s Addiction
Oil. It flows throughout the veins of America. People commuting to and from school and work use it on a daily basis and it would be painful to do without it. However, nowadays it is the cause a different type of pain located in so many peoples’ wallets. Oil is used in cars, planes and it is burned on a daily basis to make things such as your toothbrushes, or any things made from plastic. It is currently viewed as a necessity but can we develop the technology to be able to move away from our dependence on oil? To put it in perspective in 2004 America was averaging 21 million barrels of oil per day. Out of that 14.5 percent of that 21 million barrels per day were imported from Saudi Arabia which equals about 3,045,00 barrels (Gibson). Considering the fact that the price for oil as of Friday October 10th was 77.70 dollars a barrel that adds up to about1, 631,700,00 dollars (Oil Price Fall). So we are technically giving them money so they can buy weapons to attack us. If we can develop the technology to create alternate fuel sources, we can reduce a huge amount of money that is exported out of our country. In the process, we can also reduce our negative impact of burning fossil fuels on the environment. If we can find a way to harness the natural resources around us (for example the energy from waves), we can truly become a “green” country devoted to positive environmental change.
Many politicians want to drill offshore for oil because they feel it will truly benefit our economy, offer an option to become less dependent on foreign oil resources and keep us from giving money to foreign countries.
It is a common belief with many lawmakers that offshore drilling will be able to decrease the price of oil. This is a false notion. If we were to drill all the available ocean shelf off America’s coast the amount of oil extracted would be only 3 percent of the global oil level this is not enough to have an impact on the nation wide price for gas. The only reason why prices have so drastically decreased is because oil companies are losing money because so many people are riding their bikes, walking and taking mass transit instead of driving their vehicles. So oil companies are striving to remain competitive. As soon we start drilling and get people to believe that offshore drilling will keep us from having to import oil, the price of oil will increase again. Consider the fact that if oil companies got “the green light” to drill, it would take up to ten years for them to obtain a permit to drill. By this time, we could develop the technology that would free us from our destructive need for oil. Think of the technical advances that we have had in the last ten years and what we are capable of doing. Additionally, if oil companies were able to get gas for over four dollars a gallon from other countries why would they want to sell it for less here? The oil businesses is a game of who can find the most oil and sell it for the most money regardless of the effect on the environment or citizen’s wallet.
It is well known that oil spills cause huge amounts of damage to the environment, and potentially people, if the oilrigs are close enough to another state. For instance, many people are hesitant about rigs being built off the shore of Louisiana due to the fact that if there were a spill it would go straight onto the shores of Florida. However, it isn’t just the spills that are a potential cause for alarm. It is also the chemicals that are unintentionally (or intentionally) released when oil workers try to separate the oil from the water that may have found its way in to the mix as the oil is drilled. These chemicals used to break the water away kill numerous amounts of plankton when leaked into the ocean. The chemicals leak into the ocean lead to a larger problem. Imagine that over the span of a decade, the amount of chemicals leaked doesn’t change and leaks continue killing plankton. This could lead to the reduction in fish populations because a lot of animals rely on plankton as their source of nutrition. To put it in perspective:
“For any spill, only 5-15% can be cleaned up. In addition, 97% of all the spills that occur, many are under 1,000 barrels. It is not required for these spills to be reported in the federal Oil Spill Risk Analysis, because their size is considered "small” (Donatoni)
To put an even greater emphasis on what drilling can do the marine ecosystem “For every well that is drilled, about 8,000 square feet can be covered by as much as a meter thick of drilling waste, which can remain in the environment for at least two years. If the mud were to get scattered, by a hurricane for example, the waste could ultimately last for as long as forty years (Donatoni)” The bottom line is clear: that the federal government is allowed to take the lives of marine life in order to set up oil rigs. For example, near the site of many rigs sea turtles pass through. When sea turtles make contact with the “weathered oil” they are unable to have babies they become infertile. Also, sea turtles are known to be attracted to light. So you can imagine what they would do once they come across this massive ball of light in the middle of the ocean. This poses a threat in more than one-way. It could a) cause the turtles to be lured in by the light created by the oil rigs, as a result, predator fish eats them; or b) they end up getting hurt by the drilling equipment (Donatoni). These creatures are a valuable asset to scientists studying the field of global warming because they are good indicators of significant changes in weather. For example, it has been proven that when it is warmer on the beaches (and world in general) the ground (or in this case sand) will get warmer. For sea turtles this could pose a problem because they bury their eggs into the sand. Unlike humans, the sex of the turtle is determined by how warm the sand around the buried eggs is. Recently scientists have discovered an increase in the number of female sea turtles being born. Since females are usually born when the back sand is warmer there is obviously a change going on in the global climate. The noise from the drilling could also harm many animals that use sound as a means of communication. For instance the whales and dolphins.
Once the oil is drilled, oil companies need to find a way to bring the oil back to shore for public consummation. The process of transporting oil to shore could result in more pollutants into the ocean due to the ships that would be used to transport the oil. Another possible method of oil transportation from the oilrigs offshore to consumers is running pipes underwater to the shore then try to pump it like that. If these pipes were to spring a leak imagine the damage it could cause to the ocean ecosystem.
Offshore drilling can have a huge negative impact on coral reefs. Currently we don’t have to worry too much about the ones that harbor huge numbers of fish and invertebrates off the coast of Florida and North Carolina because they are being protected by a federal moratorium that is due to stay in place until 2012. As soon as this date passes we have much to fear for the sea life in those corals. There is so much about these reefs and life on the reefs that we don’t know about. If we were to allow oil companies to drill, marine life that exists in coral reefs could vanish before we get the chance to learn about them. Another benefit that these reefs provide is some possible remedies for cancer and general anti-inflammatory. This is because the reefs are home to various different forms of life. Additional benefits that reefs provide include that these are a possible source of “calcium and up to 74 different other life enhancing minerals (Panse)” Scientists are able to extract the DNA from these corals and life on them and clone their genetic make-up to produce drugs such as “AZT, Ara-A, Ara-C, and Dolostatin 10. These drugs have been found to fight against AIDS, cancer, asthma and arthritis (Panse).” Coral reefs provide history of what has happened in the ocean, and physical evidence as to how reefs have managed ocean warming and how they might be able to handle the current conditions later on down the road.
Inspections are put in place to ensure the rigs won’t leak any toxins into the ocean. People who inspect these rigs are often not catching the small leaks on the rigs because there has been much evidence in the ocean of toxins being released from these rigs. In addition, the “code” (used lightly) for rigs to pass as “safe” was created nearly a decade ago (Nancy). In other words, they haven’t even bothered to update the criteria. Technically, the rigs could be “approved” to drill and barely meet the safety requirements to drill.
Investigations of ocean shelves that contain oil worth drilling require large amounts of money. An additional cost is included when oil companies apply to receive the permit to drill and the money needed to build the rigs. Instead this money could be invested in the creation of renewable resources. For example we could use this money to invest in ways to improve solar panels so they can become as close to 100% efficient as possible or develop alternative fuels that are easily accessible and have a minimal (or none at all) negative impact on the environment.
Offshore drilling is a hot topic that is constantly being debated amongst lawmakers and recently between presidential candidates. Support has varied from yes to no to a little bit because we can’t completely abandon the use of oil. Initially, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said he opposed offshore drilling. Recently, he switched his support from opposed to pro because he (along with Barack Obama) realize that this nation has become so hooked on oil that it would be next to impossible to just completely abandon the use of oil. He states that we should drill and invest in renewable energies. Unfortunately, the fact that America is hooked on oil is undeniable. If America had already been taking more steps toward a cleaner, greener nation we wouldn’t have to make these gigantic leaps because we would already have some technologies available to help us go from and oil nation to some sort of a renewable energy nation.
The issue of drilling is a combination of what is morally right and environmentally friendly. We don’t want to drill in these areas of sea where there is a heavy concentration of reefs, mammals, and plankton. Drilling will not benefit our economy enough to make it worth putting marine life at risk. I thoroughly support the idea of taking the money that would be invested into the drilling process and applying it to greener more environmentally friendly sources of energy.
Work Cited
Anonymous. "Offshore Drilling." Petroleum Topics: Offshore Drilling. World
Petroleum. 23 Sep 2008.
http://www.worlpetroleum.org/education/offdrill/index.html.
C. Brown, David. "Why We Should Drill Offshore." Marin Independent Journal.
18 August 2008. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.marinij.com/opinion/ci_10235145?source=rss.
“Climate Change and Sea Turtles." Global Warming. 15 Oct 2008
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-change-and-sea-turtles.html.
Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan. "McCain takes a gamble with offshore
drilling plan." Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5. 11 October 2008 .
Donatoni, Matthew. "Offshore Drilling." 14 Oct 2008
http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebPages/MDonatoni/ResearchPaper.htm
Gibson, Dick. "Some interesting oil industry statistics." Oil Industry Statistics
from Gibson Consulting. Gibson Consulting. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html.
"House Approves Offshore Drilling Bill." Environmental News Services. 9/13/08.
23 Sep 2008. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-17-092.asp.
McCain, John. "Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And
Production ." The Lexington Project. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top.
Nancy. "10 Reasons Why Offshore Drilling is a Bad Idea." Earth Action. 19
August 2008. 16 Oct 2008 http://www.earthaction.org/2008/08/10-reasons-why.html.
"Oil prices fall below $79 on profit-taking." MSNBC. 14 October 2008. The
Associated Press. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/.
Obama, Barack. "New Energy for America." Obama. 14 Oct 2008
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy
Panse, Sonal. "Medicines from the Coral Reef Ecosystem." Buzzle. 20 August
2004. 15 Oct 2008 http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-19-2004-58074.asp.
"Pickens: global oil production has reached its peak." Intel Daily. 01 March 2007.
14 Oct 2008 http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=154&a=1267.
"Santa Barbara Community Prosperity Energy Joint Venture." Arctic Oil. 18
August 2008. Arctic Oil & Gas Corporation. 14 Oct 2008 http://www.strategicnine.com/santa-barbara-energy-home.htm
"Think It Can't Happen Here?." Upwelling. March 2006. FMSA. 23 Sep 2008
http://www.farallones.org/e_newsletter/2006-03/Offshoredrillingplan.htm.
.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Advertisement Write-Up
Ellis Orozco
Yura Salter
eHarmony
For this project we had to create our own advertisement, which tried to sell a product to a select group of people that the product normally wouldn’t be sold to. As we studied the world of advertising and looked deeper into the way advertisers use various techniques to gain our attention and money, we discovered various ways to approach advertising ranging from making the audience want to be like their favorite NFL star, to satisfying that need to have aesthetic sensations.
Advertising is a game of trying to connect with your audience and leave an impression that makes your audience want more. The trick is being able to do this in the span of thirty seconds, or in the case of magazine advertisers being able to catch the eye of their audience as they flip through the magazine, and make them stop long enough so you can get your message out.
For our advertisement we chose to try to sell eHarmony, a dating website, to teenage geeks who play video games. We wanted to instill this need for sex in the minds of the teens so we chose to use an image of Jessica Alba.” Mainly because everyone knows who she is. When we say “geek” we simply mean someone who is socially awkward or too intimidated by girls to talk to them. Our second technique ties in quite nicely with the need for sex and that is the need for friendship. We wanted to get the message across that if you use eHarmony you could gain a relationship with a model; it was more of “anything is possible so why not try it out?” We also tried to get the message across that by using eHarmony you could achieve success and a sense of accomplishment no matter what you look or act like.
We also created this sense of prominence, or need to be admired and respected. By using eHarmony we were portraying this image that you could gain an incredibly beautiful girlfriend and that everyone will worship you for your achievement. Which leads to satisfying the need of attention by putting the image of Jessica Alba on the advertisement we were indirectly saying that you will gain attention from people near and far. This is also known as a need for autonomy, otherwise known as the need to be the one singled out in a huge group. You want people to envy you due to the pretty girlfriend you got from eHarmony. Our final tactic was trying to satisfy the need for aesthetic sensations, which quite simply means we were trying to appeal to the audience by using beauty (Alba). It is highly effective because people will be flipping through a magazine then they see Jessica Alba and go, “Whoa, it’s Jessica Alba, let’s see what’s going on here.”
Yura Salter
eHarmony
For this project we had to create our own advertisement, which tried to sell a product to a select group of people that the product normally wouldn’t be sold to. As we studied the world of advertising and looked deeper into the way advertisers use various techniques to gain our attention and money, we discovered various ways to approach advertising ranging from making the audience want to be like their favorite NFL star, to satisfying that need to have aesthetic sensations.
Advertising is a game of trying to connect with your audience and leave an impression that makes your audience want more. The trick is being able to do this in the span of thirty seconds, or in the case of magazine advertisers being able to catch the eye of their audience as they flip through the magazine, and make them stop long enough so you can get your message out.
For our advertisement we chose to try to sell eHarmony, a dating website, to teenage geeks who play video games. We wanted to instill this need for sex in the minds of the teens so we chose to use an image of Jessica Alba.” Mainly because everyone knows who she is. When we say “geek” we simply mean someone who is socially awkward or too intimidated by girls to talk to them. Our second technique ties in quite nicely with the need for sex and that is the need for friendship. We wanted to get the message across that if you use eHarmony you could gain a relationship with a model; it was more of “anything is possible so why not try it out?” We also tried to get the message across that by using eHarmony you could achieve success and a sense of accomplishment no matter what you look or act like.
We also created this sense of prominence, or need to be admired and respected. By using eHarmony we were portraying this image that you could gain an incredibly beautiful girlfriend and that everyone will worship you for your achievement. Which leads to satisfying the need of attention by putting the image of Jessica Alba on the advertisement we were indirectly saying that you will gain attention from people near and far. This is also known as a need for autonomy, otherwise known as the need to be the one singled out in a huge group. You want people to envy you due to the pretty girlfriend you got from eHarmony. Our final tactic was trying to satisfy the need for aesthetic sensations, which quite simply means we were trying to appeal to the audience by using beauty (Alba). It is highly effective because people will be flipping through a magazine then they see Jessica Alba and go, “Whoa, it’s Jessica Alba, let’s see what’s going on here.”
Advertisement Reflection
This project was incredibly entertaining. It was fun trying to incorporate all the different ways of advertising into our own original piece of work. I had a blast because I was allowed to be creative and I was able to to get into the mindeset that advertisers have. It was fun trying to appeal to a larger audience.
Advertisement Project
The point of the advertisement project was for us to learn about different tactics advertisers use to gain our attention and money. We learned about numerous ways to get people's attention. Some being sexual appeal, celebrity endorsement and so on. We were then asked to use these tactics and create our own advertisement where we needed to try to sell a product to someone who it otherwise wouldn't be sold to. For instance my partner and I decided we wanted to sell an online dating service to geeks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)