Run-on Sentences

I don't feel like I have ever really had issues with run-on sentences. If anything, I have a problem with too much or inappropriate punctuation then anything else. The method I employ for avoiding run-on sentences is simple; I try to keep my sentences short and to the point. Now I am not saying that I have never been a victim of an errant run on sentence here and there; I have had my moments. I remember I lost 10% on a grade for a final draft of a paper in high school due to an inadvertent lack of punctuation which resulted in a run-on sentence. At the time I did not really know what a run on sentence was but I taught myself quickly and I have tried to avoid them from that point on. For people that have trouble with run-on sentences, the only advice I can give is if your sentence seems too long, try and split the thoughts up. Also, try and avoid silly punctuation errors because they can come back to haunt you like my incident in high school. I hope to consistently avoid the run-on mistake but it is likely that at some point in the future I will have one and I will make sure I get rid of it before turning in any final drafts.

Research Project Rough Draft:Futuristic Food

Picture biting into a nice big piece of corn on the cob. While it may taste good, there is much more to this piece of food then meets the eye. This particular corn cob has been modified genetically to resist pesticides. Furthermore, the adverse effects of these modifications have not been examined very close. There is no proof that the innocent action of eating corn could have ill effects on the corns consumer. Genetically modified crops are becoming an increasingly popular way to grow food. By modifying the DNA of certain crops, the crops take on new attributes such as the ability to resist pesticides or to grow bigger and faster. With increased popularity among farmers, the implications of genetically modifying food should be examined more closely, especially if genetically modified crops become the preferred choice of product for farmers. Although genetically modified crops have their upside, they are still questionable because there are potential health risks, potential environmental risks, and potential economic risks.
When scientists go in and change the DNA of a food product, they are changing what is going into the consumers body. While studies have been done on the potential health risks of genetically modified crops, the possible long term effects of eating these types of foods has not been determined. “Consumers are eating these foods without any apparent health effects, although some stakeholders caution that greater postmarket surveilence is needed to confirm this.”(Schmidt). The Food and Drug administration is required to do extensive testing to make sure that foods are safe for consumption but so far there is not substantial evidence that there is no possibility for adverse health effects rising from the consumption of genetically modified crops. What is more disturbing is these products are already being sold and consumed without consumer knowledge. “In 2002, The Royal Society itself concluded that GM technology might 'lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional nature of food'.” (Cook 133). Consumers should at least have a choice. Other potential health risks include the possibility that by eating genetically modified crops, the modifications could affect our own cells in unpredictable ways.The potential health risks of genetically modified crops should be examined before these products are consumed. Alternatives to eating genetically modified crops include eating regualr old fashioned crops. Other options include the eating of all organic crops to avoid these potential health risks.
Environmental concerns are another issue surrounding genetically modiefied crops. “There are a number of issues to consider, including development of resistance in insects against certain crop pesticides, transformation of crops into weeds, harmful effects on non-target organisms, gene flow, and altered uses of agrochemicals on transgenic crops.”(Kupier). Proponents of genetically modified food crops state that one of the advantages of using them is that they reduce the use of pesticides. In reality, the reduction of pesticide use is negligable and may actually result in more pesticide getting on the pesticide resistant crops. Because of this there is a possibility that the consumer might end up consuming crops that have been drenched in round up. Other envriornmental risk factors include the mutation of pests and weeds around the genetically modified crops. “indirect effects of glyphosphate in GRS could have effects on insects and wildlife.”(Cerdeira et Al.). The problems that result from each are the following. Weeds may become cross polinized with the modified crops and develop a resistance to the pesticides themselves. The result of this could have disastorous envrionmental effects. With the mutation these superweeds could choke out not only genetically modified crops, but could also affect non genetically modified crops in the area as well. The effects of this would result in the need for stronger pesticides to kill off the new super weeds. Another possible adverse affect of genetically modified crops is the mutation of pests that eat the crops. Like the new superweeds, pests may evolve to not be affected by the genically modified crops gene manipulation that makes them naturally immune to pests. With this mutation, once again, an increase in strength or use of pesticides would have to be achieved. Unfortuneatly for geneetically modified crops they may fuel what they attempt to prevent. Good alternatives to genetically modifying crops would be to put more money into developing safer more effective pedticides and herbacides. With modern technology chemical engineers may be able to invent pesticides and herbicides that have no impact on the environment at all while still efficiently doing their job.
Another issue brought up by growing genetically modified crops is the ethics behind the act of modifying the plant DNA all together. The idea of man playing god with plant and animal has always been subject to debate. The real ethical argument shouldn't be whether or not it is ok for scientists to modify crops and other food, but the ethical implications of corporations owning the rights to the specifically modified crops or livestock. When a corporation successfully modifies a crop, they then have the right to the patent of the genetically modified crop in question. When a corporation controls a patent, they control how much, when, where, and who can grow their product. They also have the right to take these privlages away. The implications of this could be devastating to global food sources. If corporations eventually control the majority of the food sources, then they ultimately control who can eat. This could be very dangerous in the sense that humanity will have to bend to the whim of whatever th corporations set for food standards. Even if genetically modified crops become the norm, measures must be set to limi the amount of control that corporate entities have over the food supply of the world.
Food is a necessity for human life. Genetically modified food is still really just beginning to become a realistic option for all food sources. More likely then not, genetically modified food will become a more prevelant force as a source of food. Researchers need to be sure that genetically modfied crops will not have any long term health effects on people, especially if genetically modified crops step up from being a minority food source to a majority food sources. Research should also be continued to be sure that irreversable environmental effects won't become a problem. The ethical implications of genetically modified crops must be closely examined and measures must be taken to ensure that food will remain available for all people in the world and not controlled by a select few. Genetically modified foods must be examined closer before they take a place a resonable source of food.





Works Cited:
Cerdeira, A.L., et al. "Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil [electronic resource]." Journal of environmental science and health. Part B: Pesticides, food contaminants, and agricultural wastes 42, (June 2007): 539-549. Agricola. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Kuiper, Harry. "Biotechnology, the Environment, and Sustainability." Nutrition Reviews 61.6 (15 June 2003): s106. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Schmidt, Charles W. "Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty." Environmental Health Perspectives 113.8 (Aug. 2005): A526-A533. Health Source - Consumer Edition. EBSCO. UAF Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 26 Mar. 2009 .

Cook, Guy. Genetically Modified Language. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Essay 2: Rough Draft

The events the occurred on September 11th, 2001 have led to great change in the way American's view security. After the initial panic, drastic measure were put into place around airport security. More checks, random searchs, the need for identification at nearly every checkpoint and many other new rules made travel a headache. Now that several years have passed since the initial attack, security measures have stepped back drastically, but still offer their annoyances. Although airport security is a necessity for safe travel, it causes unnecessary travel related problems because it limits what can be carried on a plane, it is often inefficient, and is unreliable.
It is certain that certain items should not be carried onto an airplane such as guns, explosives, knives, dangerous chemicals, and other items of that nature. Things begin to seem a little bit ridiculous though when people are no longer allowed to carry on their own water. The ever changing list of items that are allowed or not allowed to be carried on a plane is in constant flux and seems to be changing all of the time. The effect of this security measure makes it very difficult and annoying for passengers to figure out what they are allowed to take with them on the airplane and slows security lines down when passengers must remove certain items from their carry on and either have them checked with their luggage or have them thrown away alltogether. Another strange aspect is the banning of certain objects from being brought on an airplane and the allowence of similar objects. For example, according the the Transportation Security Adminstration's website, items such as knives, razors, box cutters, and other sharp objects are prohibited, but on the same list it clearly states “Scissors - metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches” are permissable. Metal scissors with pointed tips regardless of their size could easily be used as an offensive weapon in the right hands. Also certain items that are banned seemed to be ridiculous such as gel style shoe insoles. The TSA ought to come with with an easy to comprehend static set of rules that makes sense.
Some inefficiency is to be expected when dealing with traveling, but it should not be on the end of trained security officials. For example, random checking is probably the most inefficient aspect of modern airport security. In no way should people be racially profiled or stereotyped, but pulling children, elderly, or even adults out of line randomly is probably the least efficient way to keep travellers secure. A middle aged man travelling with his four children and wife is almost certainly not planning any sort of deadly action midflight. Tying in with carry on limits and changing rules, the searching of bags based on various objects found within can really slow down the seurity process. Once again, with better rules, people would have the ability to move through security lines more efficiently.
The worst part about airport security measures is that they do not actually achieve what they attempt to prevent. Independent studies have show that although not all the time, more often than not, the items that the security groups attempt to prevent from getting through, do. This is probably the most disturbing aspect of modern security protocal when flying. Many potentially dangerous items such as guns and sharp objects pass through security checks without being detected. According to an article by Mimi Hall “Guns and knives, along with box cutters like those used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, slipped past screeners in recent airport security tests by undercover agents.”. If the screeners can't even keep guns out, reforms to the security systems must be made. Passengers are led to believe that with strict security measures, all is well, but in reality unreliable security screenrs may be putting us into more danger.
There will always be a need for airport security. People need to feel safe when they travel. That being said, security checkpoints need to be reformed. The TSA needs to come up with a practical list of what can and cannot be brought onto a plane to help with the confusion and limits of what you can or cannot carry on a plane. Security checkpoints must become more efficient so that long waits in line or hassle can be avoided as much as possible. Finally, security checkpoints and screeners need to be more reliable in keeping items that are truly dangerous from getting onto a plane. By solving these problems, going through security checkpoints at airports would be a lot more tolerable.



Works Cited
Mimi Hall. "Weapons still getting past airport screeners." USA Today (n.d.). Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Univ of Alaska Fairbanks Rasmuson and BioSciences Libraries, Fairbanks, AK. 23 Mar. 2009 .

"TSA: Prohibited Items." Transportation Security Administration. 23 Mar. 2009
permitted-prohibited-items.shtm>.

Reading Response Week 7 and 8 #3

The visual argument presented here is done primarily in Spanish for several reasons. One reason is so the ad's message is not lost by being presented in English when it is targeted to Spanish speaking Latino men. If the message were in English, Spanish speaking men may feel that the add is not really speaking to them. By having the message in Spanish there is no denying that the add is about and for depression in Spanish speaking Latino men. Another reason the message is in Spanish is so that the message can get across to Spanish speaking men that live in the U.S. And may not speak English at all. The argument is also made in Spanish to evoke a feeling of pride for being Spanish speaking and shows that it is all right to feel depressed even as a Spanish speaking Latino male, even though traditionally it is not considered manly for Latino men to discuss their feelings. The language choice once again makes the argument much more relatable and powerful to Spanish speaking target audience then it would be if it had been done in English. That is the relationship to the target audience and the choice of primarily using the Spanish language in the add. The designers of the add chose to include the phrase “Real Men, Real Depression” to broaden their audience to non-Spanish speaking Latino men, as they will be able to understand that the message is targeted to them even if they do not speak Spanish themselves.. The inclusion of the non-English phrase helps to include people that are not of Latino decent, even though the add is clearly targeted to men of the Latino community.

Reading Response Week 7 and 8 #2

Goodman assumes that her readers have some sort of cultural knowledge about how being thin is considered to be more attractive then being large in American culture. Goodman also assumes that her readers are aware of the cultural impact television has had on American women (not to mention men, but that is beside the point). Goodman's use of allusions to American television programs helps to build her argument by making familiar references that American readers would understand. The Alley McBeal reference makes the reader think of Calista Flockhart and her unhealthy low weight. The reference to the character from The Practice invokes an image of a larger women being in a starring position on a television program and having it be OK. These allusions help to give Goodman's ethos a sense that she knows what she is talking about because she can pick out examples of weight issues from American television. The Flockhart image is what Goodman feels we should move away from and the Manheim image is what she feels we should be moving towards as being acceptable in our society in order to show girls that it is OK to be a big women and that being too skinny can be unhealthy. By referring to the television programs she also adds an element of humor to her argument. The allusions to television also help contribute to her argument by relating the thesis of her argument to her readers. Goodman uses these allusions as examples of how women's weight on television affects girl's body image views about what is beautiful. By using relatable examples, she clarifies her stand on the issue.

Reading Response Week 7 and 8 #1

Marquez begins her argument by stating with certainty that spanish-speaking Americans do not speak Spanish in public to alienate non-Spanish speaking individuals, but because in a free country like America she believes people should have the right to speak in any language they choose in public. Marquez justifies Spanish speakers in several ways. Marquez states that a lot of Spanish speakers speak in Spanish to their parents out of respect and do not intend to alienate non-spanish speakers. Marquez also states that speaking Spanish is a way of maintaining cultural roots. The fear that Marquez states non-spanish speakers may have is that not speaking English is unpatriotic or un-American. Marquez refutes this assumption by pointing out that steps had been taken by the government to accommodate bi-lingual or even non-English speaking citizens. Marquez also points out that America's founding fathers believed strongly that the United States government should not force any specific language on any of it's citizens. Marquez also responds to this fear by pointing out that many non-English speaking citizens have spoken in their native tongue in the U.S. For years due to the levels of immigration that have occurred in the United States. Marquez is also careful to point out that many non-English speaking Americans have fought and died for the United States as a response to this fear. Marquez also seeks to respond to this fear by not tolerating the exclusion of non-bilingual speakers in groups of bilingual people. By doing this, she hopes to show that Spanish speakers do not intend to be rude to anyone, but if they are having a private conversation amongst bilingual or Spanish speakers, they should have the right to speak in Spanish without feeling ashamed for doing so.

Working Thesis and Source List

Although genetically modified crops have their upside, they are still questionable because there are potential health risks, potential environmental risks, and they raise important ethical questions.

Craig, Wendy, et. al. “"An overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops [electronic resource]." EBSCOhost. Dec. 2008. UAF. 17 Feb. 2009. .

This article provides scientific risk assessments on some of the risks of genetically modified crops, and also explains how risk assessments are administered. The issues discussed are the health hazards, pest evolutionary resistance, and the integration of GMCs into other species. This is the first article I read o the subject and it provides excellent background information on what genetically modified crops are and even presents risks that I hadn't heard about like the potential to create more antibiotic resistant bacteria. This article is written by genetic engineers for genetic engineers.


Vain, Philippe. “ Thirty years of plant transformation technology development [electronic resource].”
EBSCOhost. Mar. 2007. UAF. 17 Feb. 2009. <>.

This article provides the history over the last 30 years of the progression of GM crops. It covers the developmental technology involved in creating GM. It discusses the technology by region, species, and provides a plethora of scientific data. This article will be good for my paper not necessarily for its content but mainly for the data it provides on GM crop trends. Once again, the intended audience for this article is genetic engineers. The author works in a research facility in the department of genetics.

Vergragt, Philip J.; Brown, Halina Szejnwald. “Genetic engineering in agriculture: New approaches for risk management through sustainability reporting [electronic resource].” EBSCOhost. July. 2008. UAF. 28 Feb. 2009..

This article provides a look at more issues involving GM crops. It provides more cut and dry information on the ethics and health risks including the ethics of patenting living organisms. It also reviews some of the public backlash against GM crops and government regulations regarding GM crops. I like this article because it is a little easier to understand compared to my previous articles which are more geared towards scientists. This article seems to be geared more towards the general public. Vergragt works for MIT and The Tellus Institute. Brown works at Clark University in the environmental science and policy department.

Sheldon, Ian. “Food Principles: Regulating Genetically Modified Crops after the 2006 WTO Ruling.” EBSCOhost. Fall/Winter. 2007. UAF. 28 Feb. 2009. .

This article provides information on a US challenge to EU regulations of GM crops. The author is a professor at Ohio State University. This article covers more of the ethical questions raised by GM crops, but also goes over some of the considered risks. This article, like the article above, is more politically based and provides more of a general knowledge on the subject of GM crops. I like this article because it not only focuses on the ethics of GM crops, but also provides information about some of the environmental and health concerns.
Horlick-Jones, Tom, John Walls, and Jenny Kitzinger. "Bricolage in action: learning about, making sense of, and discussing, issues about genetically modified crops and food." EBSCOhost. March
2007. UAF. 28 Feb. 2009..

This article is another good source that provides information on what GM crops are. This article is vastly different from the other articles I have gathered so far. I like it because it provides an outline of group discussions about GM crops in the UK. This article then analyzes these discussions. This is good because it gives me some information on how normal people feel about GM crops. I am also beginning to notice that this issue is very prominent in the EU. Jones-Horlick works for the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University,. UK. The other two authors are also affiliated with universities.

Editors, The. "The Green Gene Revolution.." EBSCOhost. Aug. 2004. UAF. 28 Feb. 2009.
.

This article argues for the use of GM crops. It talks about that fact that people should embrace this new technology. The article even states that the rhetoric surrounding the issue is more damaging then the crops themselves. I like this article because it offers a view opposing my thesis. The authors are the editors of Scientific American.

Schmidt, Charles W. “Genetically Modified Foods Breeding Uncertainty.” EBSCOhost. Aug. 2005. UAF. 28 Feb. 2009. .

This article talks about why farmers like using GM crops and also goes over why some countries embrace them and some don't. Another good thing about this article is it goes over more potential health risks, the most prominent being the allergenic properties of GM crops. I also like that this article has a map showing which countries grow, don't grow, or have even outlawed GM crops.
This article is nice because it goes over both sides of the argument while remaining neutral. The author is a journalist for Environmental Health Sciences.

Kuiper, Harry. “Biotechnology, the Environment, and Sustainability.” EBSCOhost. June 2003. UAF.
28 Feb. 2009. .

This article talks about research done on the environmental effects of GM crops. Its main idea is that not enough long term effect research has been done on the subject. He discusses what questions researchers should be asking and describes that his research is looking for the unintended effects of GM food and plants. I like this article because in contrast to my other articles he is proposing what types of things could potentially go wrong and proposes that they need to be investigated further without saying GM crops are in and of themselves bad. The author is a Dr. but I could not find any more information pertaining to what type of doctor he is. H e wrote this for Nutrition Reviews.


Williams, Stephen. “Rather than GM, here comes nuclear food.” EBSCOhost. Jan. 2009. UAF. 2 March. 2009. .
This article is about how nuclear plants provides a better alternative than GM crops. Nuclear crops can provide the same results as GM crops without the worry. This article does not really compare with my other sources except the fact that it mentions GM crops. I like this article because it offers an alternative method to the ends GM crops attempt to achieve. It will allow me to provide alternatives to GM crops. The author is a writer for New African.

Kanter, James. "Europe to Allow Two Bans on Genetically Altered Crops." New York
Times 2 Mar. 2009, natl. ed. New York Times. 3 Mar. 2009
03biotech.html?scp=1&sq=genetically%20modified%20crops&st=cse>.

This is an article that is about how the E.U. allowed Austria and Hungry to maintain bans on GM crops. This article is like the WTO article I have. It is unique in the fact that it is about the banning of GM crops. I like this article because it will help strengthen the idea of GM crops being unethical.
The author James Kanter covers European affairs and has a degree in history from Colombia and a degree in journalism from City College in London.

Weiss, Rick. "2 Reports At Odds On Biotech Crops." Washington Post 14 Feb. 2008,
natl ed. The Washington Post.com. 3 Mar. 2009
AR2008021303639.html>.

This article talks about the dueling argument for GM crops between the biotech companies and the environmental groups. It is about dueling reports from each group reporting the pros and cons of GM crops, specifically ones with pesticide modifications. It is like other articles I have that talk of the dangers of using crops modified to resist pesticides. The articles target audience is the general public. The author is a staff writer from the Washington Post.

Pence, Gregory E. Designer Food. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,Inc., 2002.

This is a book that covers all aspects of GM food including crops. I have not had time to read it all yet, but I did read the chapter on GM crops. His theme is that they are not harmful, but he does believe that the environmental effects could be problematic. This book is targeted to the general public. The author has been a teacher of Bioethics in the philosophy department and School of Medicine at University of Alabama.

Cerdeira, Antonio L., et al. "Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate- resistant soybean in Brazil." EBSCOhost. June 2007. UAF. 3 March. 2009. .

The article objectively looks at all aspects of GM effects on the environment. Specifically the article is talking about genetically modified soy bean plants in brazil. It points out where GM crops have no effect but does show where they do, especially in non-targeted organism such as insects and weeds. Drifts to non-transgenic crops are a problem. This article is similar to my others in that it presents scientific evidence regarding GM crops. It is different in the fact that it focuses on a specific study crop in Brazil. The audience it is targeted at is that of the scientific community. The authors are members of the Brazilian Agricultural Department of Research.

Vasil, Indra K. . "A short history of plant biotechnology [electronic resource]." EBSCOhost. Oct. 2008.
UAF. 3 March. 2009..

This article provides good background information on the history of GM crops. It provides scientific explanations for how genetically modified crops are produced and the history of methods used. I like this article because it will provide me with some background information for introducing the concept behind genetically modified crops. This article closely resembles the other scholarly articles I have and it is great that I now have some background info. The target audience for this article are scientists. The author is connected to the University of Florida, but it does not specifically say if him or her is a grad student or a professor.

Wesseler, J.H.H. ed. Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.

This book is a collection of scholarly articles. It ranges from articles on the environmental impacts of GM crops to the ethics surrounding GM crops and the costs and benefits of GM crops. I have not had a chance to go through the whole book but the introduction sums up the order of topics addressed and gives brief background information on each subject. This book is written by scientists but it is very approachable to any educated individual. The editor is a member of the Environmental Economics and Natural Resource Group a Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

Plagarism

These articles actually really helped me to understand acceptable ways to paraphrase and now I am not nervous about plagiarism anymore. Basically I learned to make sure you use your own words and not just change a few words around from the original passage and to ALWAYS cite your work even if you don't use a direct quote.

Reading Response Week 6: Visual Arguments

The argument being made by Lester is that the idea of racial preference is ridiculous when arguing about why or why not a person gets into college. Lester expresses his point by having the girl sarcastically remarking that it must be the shoes (racial preference) that got the boy into college. The Draughon comic shows the irony of the fact that the supreme court is making decisions about racial diversity when there is only one African American sitting on the supreme court bench. The Thompson comic is pointing out the many disadvantages that African Americans face just growing up let alone getting into college and it attempts to justify affirmative action by displaying these barriers. Wilkinson's comic shows that many students get into college through different advantages that not every applicant has and that regardless of that fact many people still place the blame on minorities. The Camp comic is arguing that some people have the advantages like SAT prep, tutoring, etc. to get into college, and that no matter what, some people will have advantages that others will not. The strongest argument being made is the one presented by Wilkinson. Wilkinson's comic shows in the most clear way that people will always have advantages that others do not in regards to college acceptance and that minorities face most of the blame when it is common in all groups, not just minorities. The weakest argument is the one presented by Lester. It is hard to understand what point Lester is trying to make. While he does present an argument, the other comics presented their arguments much more clearly.

Reading Response Week 6: Ralli

The controversy present in Ralli's article hinge on definition because the main issue is how to define what victims of hurricane Katrina were doing when they took food that did not belong to them. The African American being called a looter implies that he was doing something illegal while the white couple were merely carrying food they found out of necessity for survival. The relevant terms present are looter and carrier. The controversy is found by the fact that both parties were most likely getting food out of necessity but one party was described as criminal and the other as innocent of any wrong doing, but merely foraging for survival. The AP defined looting as anyone being seen entering a store and coming out with some sort of good, not necessarily limited to food or beverage. If the subject of the photograph was not seen entering the store, the AP described them as carrying food. Getty Images had a similar definition to AP's, and the photographer stated that he had not seen the couple enter the store, they were merely in front of a store where items were floating out, so he would not describe what they were doing as looting. Therefore the AP photographer described the subject of the photo as looting based on AP's definition of what the subject was doing and the Getty Images photographer described the subject of the photo as carrying food and drink based on the Getty Images definition of what they were doing. To be honest I prefer the photographer from Getty Images definition to both the AP definition and the Getty Images definition. If people were carrying electronics or things not necessary for survival, then they should definitely be labeled as looters. However, in a desperate situation like hurricane Katrina, anyone gathering food and beverage when there was a severe lack of both, should not be described as a criminal because it was in the interest of their own survival.