Here, Jones is entering into the conversation by introducing the primary point that he opposes in this article. The opposition argues that the American public evaluates Congress as a whole, and the majority party is often blamed for political gridlock. Jones disputes this immediately by arguing that American's do in fact take party performance into consideration when deciding who to vote for in elections.

Polity is the journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association. This journal was established in 1968 and is one of the more widely known political science journals. They are considered to be a credible publication.

Jones is a professor at Baruch College who specializes in American politics. He has written multiple books on politics in America, and his research has been included in many scholarly journals including The American Journal of Political Science. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/political_science/djones.htm

Jones, David R. "A More Responsible Two-Party System? Accountability for Majority and Minority Performance in a Polarized Congress". Polity, 18 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.

Here, Jones articulates his main point in the article. He is arguing that Americans hold both parties in Congress accountable for their actions and accomplishments as a party, and that voters take into account their evaluation of both political parties when deciding who to vote for in elections.

il serait intéressant de vérifier la matérialité de cet attachement : où est ce que cela se joue réellemen ? où est la table de hash qui régit ces attaches ? quelle différence entre une annotation externalisée (hypothesis) et une annotation interne au document ?

All thanks to the lack of ground water and available water from rivers and lakes.

New information to me. I always thought the salt water regulated itself through sea life.

Controversial use of water because many believe in protecting wildlife and endangered species while others are more concerned with their own survival. This raises the question of which is more important?

Farmers aren't even using half of the available water and they're the ones providing food to the nation. This can be used in an argument to support farmers.

This is an interesting quote. Often times the wealthy doesn't seem to notice serious problems until it is directly affecting them.

The once lush coast is now know for being brown.

Massive lake to small Grand Canyon thanks to the drought and need for water.

Problems of the drought that are affecting everyone economically, among other ways.

Where do we draw the line? Water is having to be trucked in to do even simple things like bath. This developed country is almost moving backward in time and advancements.

Currently there are no other solutions to help the now sinking state.

The land is too dry and collapsing from mining, thus the water will not all soak in to the earth. This can lead to mudslides which are also devastating in a hilly state like California.

Can a major storm like El Nino help speed up the process?

Richards is a contributor for several news outlets such as US News, Fox News, and Bloomberg News. She lives in California, thus experiencing the drought first hand.

This can be used for why groundwater drilling is a bad thing.

Richards, Tony. “Water Woes Divide California into Haves, Have Nots.” U.S. News. 8 Apr. 2016. Web. 10 July 2016.

Richards claim is in the subtitle of the article. He states that the decrease in water in California may cause a Dust Bowl. Throughout the piece, Richards also talks about the ongoing sinking of the state due to groundwater mining.

Sounds like hypothes.is ;)

Sounds like a description of Shepazu’s Annotation Architecture.

The EU will remain adamant, since UK has always received more than it's just share. Question of hurt pride maybe. Through the mist, another ex-Yugoslavia scenario with non-english ethnias braking away is sensed, plus North and South England parting like Sudan. After that each entity can apply for EU membership again in a future.

Every country ends up making the best decisions for itself. Pan-European policies have been a failure (given that the average annual growth rate of the EU for the past 40 years is a dismal 0.5%). Small governments over people of the same identity (and feeling of belonging) is the best approach. As an example of the above, giving the Greeks the credit rating of Germans proved to be disastrous. Germans need high quality credit to build those expensive factories and those magnificent cars. Greece is a place where Europeans go to party. Giving Greeks access to all that money simply resulted in the money being wasted and Greece going belly up. Because Greece does not need huge amounts of money to build new taverns.

The main reason for the UK leaving is that the EU (which started as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951) has grown far beyond its original charter as a trading community. The original intent of the Euro was common standards and free movement of goods and services within Europe. Very few of its current member states envisaged the EU as it is today almost at the stage of becoming a formal empire with flag and national anthem. More importantly, almost all the legislation passed in its member states are rubber stamps of EU directives. No one in Brussels gets elected by the people in the countries they govern. It's a nice cozy circle of pals mainly backed by German and French politicians.

The EU has given Europe 50plus years of peace, prosperity and progress. The UK is still a relevant vital part of Europe.the UK parliament opposes Brexit. The best outcome for the UK and Europe now would be for the UK to have a 2nd referendum. This would ensure if this drastic action is actually what the people want. On EU referendums the Danes have done this, the Irish have done this, and the UK have an opportunity to do this now. They should take it.

The Brexit campaign was based on lies, with no actual idea of plan on what to do if the Brexit proposal was passed. The net result of going through with an actual UK exit is a weaker UK, with less to little political influence in Europe, a weaker EU with a centre of power moving further East, a massive market correction in the UK, a likely recession and a potential potential.

Stephen Fidler has been Brussels Editor of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires since October 2009. He runs a bureau of 11 journalists and leads coverage from Brussels of the European Union and the euro zone as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He writes a regular column and was part of a team of Journal reporters named as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2011 for their reporting on the euro-zone debt crisis.

EU has been blind to the situation of immigration in the UK, and this has been a huge mistake on the part of the EU. When 55% of the population in the capital of the UK is not of British origin (whatever the passport is), you clearly have reached a limit. The day 55% of Berliners are not German or 55% of Romans are not Italian you will see an even stronger reaction. The EU should have acknowledged the peculiar situation of the UK (historical immigration plus fresh immigration from the EU plus fresh immigration from the rest of the world) and granted the country a special status with regard to freedom of movement within the Union. And we know very well that enabling the citizens of East European countries whose per capita GDP was half that of the West to move freely across the continent was a big blunder, and a demonstration that the EU sometimes defends more the interests of large entrepreneurs who need cheap labor than the interests of citizens.

What has happened now, particularly in non-London England is very distressing. It is understandable that in some towns and cities that people have been left behind and there is a lot of real poverty. That did not apply to prosperous towns in the Home Counties.Something very ugly is happening in England. Perhaps it was always there, lurking, and the referendum has opened the box. People in the prosperous counties such as Essex and Herts voted in great swathes for Leave. These areas don't have a mass immigration or suffer from major crises. There was broadly an inverse relationship between those voting Brexit and the immigration numbers.

British manufacturing relies heavily on imported components and commodities, and the price of those just jumped. The effect of exchange rates on exports is often exaggerated. Much British manufacturing, such as cars, is here because manufacturing them in the EU wins EU subsidies and tax breaks. Not any more. Manufacturers wanting to serve the EU market will not be making them in Britain any more, the same goes for other goods. Finally, tariffs on manufactured good, most of which get sold to the EU, are only going to go up. There will be some winners and some losers in manufacturing out of this but it's by no means a simple win.

The pound falling, credit rating declines, short-term balance of payment issues and interest rate increases are expected results. At this point, fearful readers seem to be looking only at these short-term effects and panicking. If the new government acts decisively takes a firm path towards a dynamic economy, the pains should be limited to the short-to-medium-term and Scotland and Ireland would be very receptive to staying within the UK if and only if the UK demonstrates that it can quickly reboot its economy.

Buttonwood columnist considers the ever-changing financial markets. Brokerage was once conducted under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street.

Ignatius, David. "How ISIS Spread in the Middle East And how to stop it". The Atlantic.29 Oct. 2015. Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

Ignatius claims that ISIS is not merely a terrorist group, but it's an anti-colonial organization with higher political motives aiming to restore an "Islamic caliphate" similar to the ottoman empire. And that the US failed foreign policies facilitated their insurgence and empowerment.

The article ends by stating that NASA plans on continuing their research and projects. They end it on a hopeful note, and make the audience want to join them on their adventures. This article strikes me as a message to the nation that we need to continue to support NASA. They make the case that what they are doing is important and needs the backing of as many people as possible. The fact that they talk mainly about the exciting missions that they are working on, and not the more standard missions also in the works, supports this idea.

There are other benefits to backing NASA, as they mention here. By demonstrating how what they are doing can help with environmental issues, more people may support their research. This may allow more of the audience to back them in the hopes of making our lives better in the immediate future.

NASA then explains that they are taking the steps they can in order to help out with issues people have had with them. They are working with private companies and other nations in order to bolster resources. The underlying message is that by teaming up with othe groups, they will not need as much money to reach their goals.

The article then explains why we do not have the exciting missions currently that we like to think of when space exploration comes up. We currently do not know enough to send astronauts off to other places safely. In order to get there, NASA needs to to more research as to just how to get there, and how to handle the many different types of situations that might arise. I think NASA is essentially telling people to be patient with them, and that what they are doing now may seem unimportant, but that it is necessary in order to take the next step.

The first goal of NASA is indicated as the type of mission that most people think about when they think space exploration; astronauts going to far off places. This will keep the audiences attention, as it is the hook for the article.

The article opens up with a quote from the NASA administrator, Charles Bolden,who states NASA's mission statement. This helps solidify where NASA is coming from and gets the audience's attention.

"What's Next for NASA?"NASA. 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 10 July. 2016

This article is from NASA itself, detailing their ongoing and future plans for their projects. This has been written not only to keep the audience informed of what is happening and where their money is going, but also to pitch ideas that may get them more support for their endeavors. Although it is a government agency, NASA sometimes need to act like a business. One thing businesses need to do to gain investors is to pitch their ideas. For this reason, the article was written. It could be argued either way whether or not this is a credible source. I think its credible, but not scholarly. It comes from NASA and is being edited regularly by NASA administrators. These are experts in the field, which means the people should be believed. However, there are no outside sources or information being used. It is strictly stating plans for the agency's future.

Article is ended very similarly to the current Juno article I included earlier. NASA helps create a demand for scientists of diverse backgrounds in order to further advance capabilities. By doing so, more jobs are made possible, which we sorely need. This is also beneficial because it shows a specific reason that has stayed the same throughout the decades. This gives credence that benefits from the mid 1900's are the same as today. This allows us to safely argue that the benefits presented in this old article are still prevalent to today.

This is an argument against NASA that is somewhat prevalent to our current situation. In times of war, other groups, such as the military, do more spending and boost the economy more. Since we are dealing with homeland terrorism and ISIS, it could be argued that a larger military would boost the economy more than NASA would.

The article explains that NASA is responsible for the United States' satellites that are in orbit. Reading the surrounding text, it is revealed that this means things such as our meteorological satellites, which help us predict the weather. This is an incredibly important thing we use in our daily lives, especially with disaster prevention. It is all thanks to NASA. This is another piece of evidence that can be used to show the importance of NASA, and how it goes beyond the space exploration that most Americans know them for.

As NASA expanded its capabilities, it began to reach for further goals, which demand higher technology. They would therefore need to purchase the highest end products available, which would also help to stimulate the economy.

Very specific example of where NASA allowed considerable growth for the economy. It helped create a booming industry that allowed the eventual creation of a large portion of the technology that we use today, such as our phones, computers, televisions, etc.

This appears to be an older paper as well. Based off its content, it appears that it was published around the 70's or 80's. However, the information given is still factual and can be used to support current times. The Midwest Research Institute studied the effects that NASA seemed to have on the economy. As seen, the MRI indicated that NASA had turned a massive profit for the economy. Technological advancement groups create products or develop techniques that can advance civilization. When this happens, our capabilities increase. NASA has demonstrated that it created this type of advancement. For every dollar that they had been given, they were able to create advancement that allowed twice as much money to benefit the economy within a decade.

Schnee, Jerome. "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program." NASA. Web. 10 July. 2016.

This is a detailed account as to how NASA and their projects have impacted the United States. It is a highly credible source, written by a government agency, and published by NASA itself. Jerome is degree backed through Rutgers University, and the article he has written is credible, as shown by the plethora of bibliography entries on the article itself. The only possible case against credibility is the lack of a publication date. However, since this appears to be a database entry, it is understandable why there is not a publication date. As for the audience, this article is most likely for those concerned with budgeting NASA, as well as government transparency.

Taylor then balances this out by talking about European nations. He explains that the spending in this part of the world is evening out and not increasing year afer year. If anything, it could be dropping. Since these are established countries, the United States could go this way as well, and any increased spending could go to places like NASA. There are many factors that could go into the spending for the United States military and defense. If the threat level stays the same or decreases, there may not be a need to cut NASA's funds, and may even make it possible for them to gain more funding. If the opposite proves true, NASA may in fact need to be cut back in order to allow the increased spending.

This could be an argument against NASA. If other countries begin to spend more, the United States may be inclined to do the same. The spending is so high already that the U.S. may decide to cut other areas. This could include NASA

Further evidence to support the thought that if cuts are to be made, it should be in the military spending. The United States spends half a trillion dollars on its military, which is more than one third the amount of the entire world. However, it could be argued that quality is more important than quantity. Other countries that gain the edge technologically would be able to do more, despite the fact that they do not have as much financial backing. If the United States focused their thinking to this outcome, they could cut cost while keeping the military edge we have established.

At this point, it may not be very apparent as to why I have chosen this article to discuss spending on space exploration. The reasoning is to discuss another stakeholder viewpoint on the issue. The amount of money that the government allows NASA is incredibly small in comparison to how much is spent on other areas such as military expenditures. This page shows that science (such as NASA) and military both fall under discretionary spending. The military is given so much more money than NASA. Therefore, it could be argued that if the government wanted to cut costs, they should focus on cutting the expenses used for the military instead of NASA.

This article is reporting information released from the IISS. This source is incredibly credible, to the point that it helps run international summits. This proves that the information being received is incredibly accurate and will be very informative and factual.

Multiple authors give crediblity.Adam Taylor is a professional writer and focuses on foreign affairs, which gives him large credibility to him penning an article about global spending on defense.

Laris Karklis is more of an illustrator, providing graphs and pictures to represent data being discussed.

The Washington Post is a very credible source for news. They are well known, and cover a plethora of topics, as well as maintaining a high standard of professionalism.

Taylor, Adam, and Karklis, Laris. "This Remarkable Chart Shows How U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs the Rest of the World." The Washington Post. 9 Feb. 2016 Web. 10 Jul. 2016.

This article states very specifically that is talks about how the United States spends more money on its defense and military than any other country in the world. Its audience is most likely those concerned with where their tax money is going. It also is to show those interested in more global comparisons just where the United States ranks in terms of spending.

Space X ends the article by describing a third and final product, the Grasshopper. I believe Space X was wise to end the article this way. Although this rocket did not reach as high a distance, the composition of the rocket sounds a lot more impressive. They explain that the Grasshopper was a larger vehicle .They also explain that it was a better comparison to the type of rocket that NASA would use. It contains an engine, and "support structure" on top of the rocket, which makes it appear to be more of the type of craft we think of when talking about NASA. By doing so, Space X makes their product appear to be more of the complete package. They describe only the successes they had with the Grasshopper, in an effort to appease their possible customers.

As stated previously, this is not an article that could be considered a scholarly article. IT is mostly a large product pitch to people interested in space exploration. They do use facts, and it is accurate information as it is coming from the people in charge of the rockets, but it is biased. However, it shows that one possible solution to funding NASA as much as we do is to privatize part of the work, or at least find a way to reuse parts of the missions to reduce cost.

Space X now shows some successful attempts, to prove that they will reach their goal. They talk about a second product they have that uses a different form of lander. By doing so, they show that there is more than one option for these forms of rockets. They attempt to make the distance sound more impressive, as saying 1000 meters is a lot more impressive sounding than a single kilometer.

Space X does a really good job of explaining its advancements and how it is going about creating the rocket. They describe how they first made rockets that could get to space, then began working on making those that could be landed properly. Space X explains their first attempt made it to the target, but crashed into it instead of landing. However, they actually never say that they failed, just that it "landed hard". This makes it sound as if they were successful, when they actually were not. They do the same when explaining the second failed attempt. By saying that it was extreme weather that caused the failure, they are stating it was not their fault. This is an excellent business technique as it still makes it sound as if their product will work as it has been designed to do.

Space X states that they are working on creating the rocket that is designed to be used over and over again. They do state that they have not fully created the rocket yet, but are in the process of doing so. This is to ensure their possible customers that the product is being created and not to search for other possibilities while it is being created.

Space X uses one of the best ways to show the cost effectiveness of their product that I can ever seen. They describe that the cost of a commercial airliner is about the same as the rocket for a space-destined vehicle. However, the commercial airliner is used thousands of times before going out of service, while the rocket is only used once. By stating this, the audience can see that the cost effectiveness is so much better if the rocket can become reusable. This is where Space X's product would come in.

The wording used is very important. It does not attempt to supply the belief as a fact. It is simply stating that this is what the company as a whole believes. However, Space X also repeats the benefit to its product, which makes sure that this is clear in the audiences mind. One of the biggest issues people have with NASA is that their money is being taxed to fund them. By offering a technology that will reduce those costs, your average citizen may be more supporting if they believe that they will not have to pay as much for the program.

This is a quote from Elon Musk. Musk is the founder and owner of the Space X company. It is a very important quote because it does several things. It describes the main mission of space X that is currently going on. By doing so, we know exactly where the company is coming from. It also talks about the benefit of what it is working on, most importantly the cost cutting it could do to the space program. It also clearly demonstrates the article's audience. The audience are those interested in the product of reusable rockets who may want to purchase the technology, as well as educating the public to what the product means to the industry.

"Reusiability: The Key To Making Human Life Multi-Planetary." Space X. 10 June. 2015 Web. 10 July. 2016.

The fist thing that must be said is that this article is not fully scholarly. It is informative, but biased. It does not have a specific author and it comes from a company that is attempting to sell a product. However, there is an incredibly important reason for using this article; it supplies a possible solution to the funding of NASA. As a result, it is a different stakeholder position from the previous article.

Finally, Grady finishes her article with establishing another benefit to the mission that might get more people on board with funding NASA. She states that there is room for high end jobs, to help with unemployment. She also makes special mention that female engineers are wanted, that may appeal to the female demographics as well.

Grady does several things here. One of the main arguments against funding for NASA is that people do not see probes circling other planets of important. Sending Neil Armstrong to the Moon was impressive and exciting, but this wasn't. However, she stands as a voice for her field, and is attempting to show her audience that this is just as important of a mission.

Grady mentions the Voyager missions. This shows that the mission is complementing previous mission information, showing the cost of the mission isn't just to tread old ground. By doing so, Grady is building a case that the money is truly being spent to gain and improve our information on the planet of Jupiter.

Grady is stating the importance of this mission. The reason this is important is because it covers one of the stakeholder positions that will be covered in my paper. It describes the valuable information that NASA and the space exploration community will gain from this mission. By explaining that the mission will give more information than any of the previous explorations to Jupiter so far, it is justifying why the cost of this mission is important. This will in turn show that funding towards space programs is being used responsibly and that the money is not being wasted on treading old ground.

Grady is now getting to the heart of the article. She writes very technically and factual from her on out. It is unbiased as there is no opinion being thrown in. She describes some of the many issues that surround the mission and how much money it has cost to get to the point it is today.

She now brings the viewer back to the main purpose of the article; to talk about the Juno mission. She does so by expressly stating what the mission is.

Grady attempting to further connect with her audience, people interested and invested in space exploration, by talking about something other than the mission. she refers to Independence Day, a popular sci-fi action movie that also happens to refrence the day the real life mission of Juno became successful.

Grady does several things with this statement. First, she adds to her credibility for reporting on this topic. By working on a mission similar to this one, she is showing that she has an insider's view on missions such as this, instead of being purely an outsider. She also establishes emotion into the article by going into more detail into the excitement that goes on within these missions, and how she had a genuine emotion to the announcement and reaction of the mission.

Grady starts the actual article by talking about just how impressive the Juno mission is in of itself. The fact that the success of the mission was an exciting announcement to the entire world speaks volumes as to how impressive this mission has become.

Article gives a brief biography of who the author is, and points to a leader in the field, showing a reputable and scholarly source. Open University is an accredited university that offers online schooling for European countries, verifying the author is in fact a professor.

Grady, Monica. "How Nasa's Juno Jupiter probe could be about to solve the solar system's biggest mystery of all." The Telegraph. 10 July. 2016. Web. 10 July. 2016.

Grady uses a title that helps support her overall point of this paper. This mission is incredibly important for NASA, as well as our understanding of the solar system that Earth inhabits.

I struggle with annotating texts that are potentially controversial. For example, last semester we annotated some texts on GamerGate. It's such a touchy subject that I felt that I couldn't express my full opinions, I had a fear of retribution.

Yes, being able to take your annotations "anywhere" is a definite plus!

This is a neat idea, but do you think that this inhibits some of the students from annotating to their full potential? If I had a great idea, I might save it for myself instead of having someone else "steal" it.

Cool thing is. Udell and the gang are pretty open to suggestions, it sounds like. At the same time, it’s quite possible that webmentions wouldn’t fit in their overall vision of the tool.

Had missed this announcement. The annotation scene has this interesting ambivalence between being old and new, forward-looking and somewhat nostalgic. Wish Diigo were forward-looking enough to get into Open Annotations.

That dream does live on. Since Vannevar’s 1945 article on the Memex, we’ve been dreaming of such tools. Our current tools are quite far from that dream.

This pithy statement brings together all sorts of previous annotations. Would be neat to map them.

A group of experts got together last year at Daghstuhl and wrote a white paper about this.

Basically the idea is that the data, the code, the protocol/analysis/method, and the narrative should all exist as equal objects on the appropriate platform. Code in a code repository like Github, Data in a data repo that understands data formats, like Mendeley Data (my company) and Figshare, protocols somewhere like protocols.io and the narrative which ties it all together still at the publisher. Discussion and review can take the form of comments, or even better, annotations just like I'm doing now.

Die LIBREAS-Redaktion möchte gern, dass sämtliche und möglicherweise besonders dieser Artikel mit hypothes.is annotiert wird - vgl. diesen Tweet.

You can annotate as a single user (Post to Only Me), keeping notes private to you (of course, you would not see this note if I did so), to a Group (we use, PSGTusers) or to Public; the latter is visible to everyone.

Beyond global access and pricing advantages of online publishing of "Processes in Structural Geology and Tectonics", flexible presentation, linking, add-ons and annotation are among the game-changers. Especially the latter, annotation, needs more development, but opportunities for user and community value-added are plentiful. We have opted to use Hypothes.is, which is free and open platform.

Kind of surprised not to see other [h] annotations, here.

Shoutout to h?

As a teacher, I don't know that I want this prefabricated, though....

And annotate, I believe.

Flattery will lead us nowhere… But it’s still a warm and fuzzy feeling to be in such illustrious company.

That's done to accommodate sites who's DOM changes either over time or during user interaction (single page apps, etc).

This blog post explains the current approach and thinking behind it in Hypothes.is: https://hypothes.is/blog/fuzzy-anchoring/

Il y a de belles expériences open qui sont en cours, dont celle de la revue Vertigo (tu les as peut-être vues avec le tutoriel) : open peer review avec hypothes.is

https://hypothes.is/blog/annotating-to-extract-findings-from-scientific-papers/

https://via.hypothes.is/http://vertigo.hypotheses.org/1891

et chez hypothes.is, ils travaillent avec des éditeurs scientifiques https://hypothes.is/blog/a-coalition-of-over-40-scholarly-publishers/

On en discute sur le facebook de HackYourPhD, si ça t'intéresse.

Vraiment, je suis ravi que cet outil attire ton attention !

This is a test

Here is what "they" are saying. Due to the increasing temperature of the ocean because of climate change, specifically El Nino, many populations of marine species are being diagnosed with diseases and dying. As seen by a research studies done by Cornell University, sea star wasting disease has become more prevalent. It's affects are devastating as many as 20 species of sea stars along the U.S. coast. Another study also claims that with temperatures continuing to increase, there will eventually be an increase in shell diseases in lobsters found off the Gulf Coast. The rest of the article goes into potential ways to address the issues at hand in special ways.

Berwyn, Bob. "Study Links Warming Ocean with Increased Marine Diseases." Summit County Citizens Voice. N.p., 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Mar. 2016.

The claim in this article as stated by author Bob Berwyn is that because of climate changes such as the increasing temperature of the ocean, marine life is being put in danger and is dying off.

I like that Berwyn has shown an example of the economic effect of the increasing temperatures rather than just environmental ones. I think this helps appeal to the audience better because it has shown the effects of climate change in a more relate able way, as people's well being and lifestyles will change along with the marine life. Perhaps this will get people to start taking this issue more seriously if they realize it will start effecting them economically and even socially.

This is a substantial statistics. It's an example of ethos as it is using statistical data to help argue the seriousness of climate change and warming water.

The author of this article is different then most of the other sources I've done because he is not a scientist, but rather an influential editor and reporter of the Summit County Citizens Voice. The Summit County Citizens Voice is a news website that has reported "uncensored" and "unfiltered" news since 1996. It specifically reports on news related to the environment.

Berwyn, as a reporter and editor, is well respected as his work has appeared or been featured in top magazines and news sources across the country. For example, "he has reported for the Denver Post, the Summit Daily, the Summit Times, the Summit Independent, the Vail Daily Trail, the Aspen Daily News, the Durango Herald and the Telluride Daily Planet. His stories have also appeared in High Country News and 5280 magazine". Because of his extensive resume and connections, I find him to be a credible source who reports valid information.

http://summitcountyvoice.com/about/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/bob-berwyn-b624ab9

According to the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology website provided by the University of California Santa Barbara, "Sea star wasting syndrome is a general description of a set of symptoms that are found in sea stars. Typically, lesions appear in the ectoderm followed by decay of tissue surrounding the lesions, which leads to eventual fragmentation of the body and death. A deflated appearance can precede other morphological signs of the disease. All of these symptoms are also associated with ordinary attributes of unhealthy stars and can arise when an individual is stranded too high in the intertidal zone (for example) and simply desiccates". The scary thing about this particular disease is that it can kill a sea star in as little as a few days. It seems to be very aggressive and quick targeting to marine life.

That’s something we’ve been doing, yes.

Obvious case for h. Imagine the possibilities of linked open data used in annotating presentations which would be part of scholarly books along with all the necessary material? The mind wanders…

Funny how frequently this terms comes up, when talking about Genius. The difference between annotation platforms is significantly a matter of usage. Usage of Genius has a lot to do with snarky comments made by “the smart kid at the back of the class”. My perception of Hypothesis is that it’s much more oriented towards diversifying voices. But that has less to do with technical features of the platform than with the community adopting it.

Just got in touch with @DoyleOwl. Neat approach to annotation. My sense is that Genius can have a useful effect similar to that of those programmes using basketball to keep kids off the streets.

Glad this was mentioned. To the Eric Raymonds of this world, such a response sounds “perfectly legitimate”. But it’s precisely what can differentiate communities and make one more welcoming than the other. Case in point: Arduino-related forums, in contrast with the Raspberry Pi community. Was looking for information about building a device to track knee movement. Noticed that “goniometer” was the technical term for that kind of device, measuring an angle (say, in physiotherapy). Ended up on this page, where someone had asked a legitimate question about Arduino and goniometers. First, the question:

Trying to make a goniometer using imu (gy-85). Hoe do I aquire data from the imu using the arduino? How do I code the data acquisition? Are there any tutorials avaible online? Thanks =)

Maybe it wouldn’t pass the Raymond test for “smart questions”, but it’s easy to understand and a straight answer could help others (e.g., me).

Now, the answer:

For me, google found 87,000,000 hits for gy-85. I wonder why it failed for you.

Wow. Just, wow.

Then, on the key part of the question (the goniometer):

No idea what that is or why I should have to google it for you.

While this one aborted Q&A is enough to put somebody off Arduino forever, it’s just an example among many. Like Stack Overflow, Quora, and geek hideouts, Arduino-related forums are filled with these kinds of snarky comments about #LMGTFY.

Contrast this with the Raspberry Pi. Liz Upton said it best in a recent interview (ca. 25:30):

People find it difficult to remember that sometimes when somebody comes along… and appears to be “not thinking very hard”, it could well be because they’re ten years old.

And we understand (from the context and such) that it’s about appearance (not about “not thinking clearly”). It’s also not really about age.

So, imagine this scenario. You’re teacher a class, seminar, workshop… Someone asks a question about using data from a device to make it into a goniometer. What’s the most appropriate strategy? Sure, you might ask the person to look for some of that information online. But there are ways to do so which are much more effective than the offputting ’tude behind #LMGTFY. Assuming they do search for that kind of information, you might want to help them dig through the massive results to find something usable, which is a remarkably difficult task which is misunderstood by someone who answer questions about goniometers without knowing the least thing about them.

The situation also applies to the notion that a question which has already been asked isn’t a legitimate question. A teacher adopting this notion would probably have a very difficult time teaching anyone who’s not in extremely narrow a field. (Those teachers do exist, but they complain bitterly about their job.)

Further, the same logic applies to the pedantry of correcting others. Despite the fact that English-speakers’ language ideology allows for a lot of non-normative speech, the kind of online #WordRage which leads to the creation of “language police” bots is more than a mere annoyance. Notice the name of this Twitter account (and the profile of the account which “liked” this tweet).

Lots of insight from @BiellaColeman on people who do things “for the lulz”. Her work is becoming increasingly relevant to thoughtful dialogue on annotations.

Same experience, even in the Genius guidelines. The tool’s affordances (and name) revolve around snark. In the abstract, there’s nothing wrong with that. We need spaces for people to have fun, even if it’s at the expense of others. But the startup is based on a very specific idea of what constitutes useful commentary. That idea is closer to pedantry, snark, intellectual bullying, and animated gifs than on respectful exchange.

A “well-informed citizenry” require journalistic assistance. Which is why US elections are such a neat context to discuss literacy, public opinion, agency, representativeness, and populism.

That part never worked. But maybe these annotations will? That’d be neat.

It may annoy many, but overtagging can be playful.

Martin Luther King points out the major inconsistencies that were prevalent and existent within the debate of the purpose, meaning, and tactics of the Vietnam War. Martin Luther King compares of his teachings versus the hypocritical stance of the Vietnam War. He uses his teachings of non-violent practices when fighting for a purpose in comparison to the violence that is being required for the people to use in Vietnam. He hates and showcases his uneasiness when trying to explain the reasoning for the violence, but there is no particular reason for the violence when fighting for a cause. His uncertainty resembles the uncertainty of President Johnson when he decided to go into a war that really did not possess a certain reason for a war besides the domino theory of communism even though Vietnam was truly out of our hands. The acts of the Vietnam War not only go against the morals of the United States but the morals of Martin Luther Kings, his teachings, and the people as well.

We’re here! We’re always here. You can hide us, but we’re in your webpages, annotating away.

In my wishlist to Jon Udell (still in draft), these two modes can be separate phases with Hypothesis. But in reverse order. First pass is the distributed commentary about the whole piece, similar to social bookmarking and potentially affording a very cursory look (or even just a glance at a headline). It says: “Hey, please read this and tell me what you think!” The second pass could be the deep reading, with one’s personal comments visible, but not influenced by other comments. Then comes the “fun part”, which is also a form of distributed commentary, but is much more conversational. “Distributed” might not be as appropriate, though. At least in computer lingo.

This one remains to be demonstrated. As we keep saying, exclusion may be passive but inclusion is by definition active. Open annotations may not sound so exclusive for those who appropriated it as a technology, the same way literacies are often taken for granted. But we often tend to take “democratization” as a given.

Despite an important continuity.

Could soooo imagine a presentation on using #Hypothesis with #PressBooks!

Annother possible inquiry question: While this may be bad news for the world's commercial fishing industry and recreational fishing, what about for the ecosystem as a whole? Or even through a smaller lens, what about the organisms living in a toxic environment that they have no control over?

This also sheds some light on the view of fishermen and how the pollution of the ocean is directly affecting themas well.

This article mainly focuses on the stakeholder view of environmentalists. It examines the negative effects of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the environment and how it is severely affecting the marine organisms.

This increases the credibility of the author by discussing a scientific study.

What information was found by this study? How is it beneficial to the authors claim?

By brining in information from a University this increases the credibility of the author.

Here the author uses logos. They are showing the harsh reality of how close our oceans are to having severe consequences due to our own pollution.

Another possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: Although the incentive of a monetary reward is appetizing, why is it necessary for there to be a tangible reward present when an entire ecosystem is at risk of extinction because of our own wrong doing?

Shouldn't we be morally obligated to take care of the ecosystems that surround us and play a major role for life on planet earth?

A possible inquiry question to be asked here could be: If we continue to litter and pollute the oceans, how will the rest of the ecosystem be affected by the loss of these systems?

"Rising Ocean Pollution Levels Are Making Fish Drunk." The Inquisitr News. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a popular source, therefore we can expect an informal approach to gain audience attention. The claim of this article is that the increase in carbon dioxide levels in the ocean due to climate change is negatively affecting that fish that live in these marine environments and giving them a drunken affect.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while presenting credible and relevant information to support their claim. They present the view of the stakeholder position of environmentalists and researchers.

(http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_and_the_oceans.php)

The link above is an article that discusses acidification and global warming. Although the two are slightly different they are both similar in the way that they are caused by the emission of CO2. Plastic products are known to release CO2 into marine environments. This scholarly journal also discuses the carbon cycle and how plastics are responsible for some of the excess CO2 being released (http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy2.library.colostate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S092181810800012X). Plastic also releases CO2 into the atmosphere. This is a major cause of global warming as well. Because of the CO2 emitted by plastic in both marine ecosystems and into the atmosphere, the Thompson and Hamer discuss how it is also a main stressor present in seabirds and how it is negatively affecting these organisms.

This also increases the authors' credibilty. Here they discuss an experiment that took place over an eight year period of which seabirds in the tropical Pacific stomachs' were examined to see exactly what kinds of plastics were being digested and how the birds were being affected by it.

The authors increase their credibility (ethos) by citing information from other scholarly articles and researchers. This also allows the authors to further support their claim with relevant and reliable information suggesting that plastics are a main stressor to the seabirds.

Thompson, David R., and Keith C. Hamer. "Stress In Seabirds: Causes, Consequences And Diagnostic Value." Journal Of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress & Recovery 7.1 (2000): 91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This is a scholarly article written by two credible authors, one from the University of Durham and one from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research. The title indicates that the article will be discussing the causes, consequences and diagnostic values of stress present in seabird. I believe that the claim of this scholarly journal is that, seabird are a very important part of the marine ecosystem, however the amount of stress present in these birds is increasing due to various stressors that are being introduced into their environment.

The authors argue that a big misconception about ocean pollution is that is only affects the organisms that live beneath the surface. They state that while that statement is somewhat true, ocean pollution also affects the organisms that feed off of other species such as fish.

This article is focusing on the stakeholder position of environmentalists. It shows how they view the topic of ocean pollution, specifically by plastic, and why it is such an important issue that is rising in generation.

Here the author uses more statistics to talk about how more could be done to decrease plastic pollution in oceans, and around the world in general. They state that 58% of paper and 90% of iron and steel get recycled whereas only 14% of plastic does.

What are some solutions to this? Maybe the general public is not as informed about the requirements of recycling. There is a significant emphasis placed on paper products being recycled to "save the trees". Maybe if the public were to become more aware that plastic is recyclable to, and if a movement such as something along the lines of "save the fish" or "save the dolphins" were to be started, then possibly more plastic products would get recycled.

"Plastic For Dinner?." Earth Island Journal 31.1 (2016): 11. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

This source is a periodical, or a scholarly source. By reading the title it is pretty evident what the article is about, it even almost indirectly states the claim. I think the claim is that there will soon be so much plastic in the oceans that fish and other marine organisms will be "having it for dinner" and how it is going to effect the marine ecosystem, fishermen and pescatarians.

Although its a scholarly source, it appeals to readers in a more simplistic and understandable way. Rather than appealing to students and other researchers, this article seems to focus more on appealing to the general public that may be concerned about the increasing problem of ocean pollution. This article also does a fairly good job at remain objective while presenting information in a less formal way, but also keeping it credible.

( http://patch.com/new-york/northfork/countywide-single-use-plastic-bag-ban-pitched-suffolk-legislator)

Here the author brings in a the side of a CEO from a Plastic Pollution Coalition to increase their credibility. She states that one of the biggest problems is single use and disposable plastic. The article linked above discusses the negative effect of single use plastic as well as focusing on a proposed ban of single-se plastic bags in New York.

Here the author uses ethos and logos. They use ethos by using a World Economic Forum to get statistical support for their claim. They then use those statistics in the form of logos, stating "8 millions tons of plastic end up in our ocean each year". This both increases their credibility and gives the audience statistical information. The author also uses and analogy to connect with their audience by comparing the amount of plastic present in the oceans to the amount plastic dumped into the ocean by a dump truck per minute. This allows the reader to better understand how much plastic is actually being released into the marine ecosystems.

This is the main idea that the author will be discussing throughout the article. It also can be seen as a hook that pulls in more readers by gaining their interest in something they might see as an exaggerated statement. The reality of it is that its a potentially true statement that is supported by evidence throughout the article.

Throughout the journal the authors do a good job of remaining objective while discussing their claim and presenting relevant and supportive information.

Here they use ethos by discussing information that was presented in another scholarly article, increasing their credibility on the topic the are about to address in this next section of their journal. They bring in information from many outside sources throughout their entire journal to support their claim.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto address the stakeholder position of future generations and how the excess CO2 emissions will effect them. They talk about how our future generations will have to bear the burden of things such as dealing with the consequences of a warmer climate and contaminated water sources. While there are some solutions to this problem, Nusbaumer and Matsumoto bring up the questions of how much excess CO2 is too much? And once it reaches a certain point is it even possible that the affects can be reversed let alone fixed? These and many more are all questions future generations will be forced to deal with due to our generations actions, or lack of.

(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8 ) (http://www.dictionary.com/)

Two outside sources that were helpful during this article. Because it is an academic journal, the authors used a lot of vocabulary that is not commonly known. I found myself looking up a lot of words and using the dictionary for definitions.

Here Nusbaumer and Matsumoto use logos to appeal to their audience. While they have provided many numbers and statistics throughout their journal so far, here they implement graphs to give their audience a visual representation of some of the data they have been discussing and how it can be applied.

I think this is where the authors are articulating their claim; that the addition of CO2 into our environment can have many harmful effects however it can affect many different people, animals, ecosystems, etc. negatively and that many groups are having difficulty coming to a consensus on this and their values.

Nusbaumer, Jesse, and Katsumi Matsumoto. "Climate and Carbon Cycle Changes under the Overshoot Scenario." Global and Planetary Change 62.1-2 (2008): 164-72. Web.

This is an academic journal. Academic journals are very reliable sources because they are written by credible authors who attempt to remain objective while discussing their claim. This article is written by two authors, one from Perdue and one from the University of Minnesota.

The authors show that the reader can trust them right away by giving examples of their more direct claim which is that many victims are blamed especially if they are rape victims.

This is the general claim of the article.

" Violence Against Women ". Vaw.sagepub.com. N. p., 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

"Violence Against Women (VAW) peer-reviewed and published monthly, is an international, interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the publication of research and information on all aspects of the problem of violence against women. VAW assumes a broad definition of violence; topics to be covered include, but are not limited to, domestic violence, sexual assault, incest, sexual harassment, female infantcide, female circumcision, and female sexual slavery."

Hockett, Jericho M., et al. "Rape Myth Consistency And Gender Differences In Perceiving Rape Victims." Violence Against Women 22.2 (2016): 139-167. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

In the other popular article, the author said Sony could put an end to this. I responded by saying I was confused as to why Sony would want the bad publicity and this sentence backs that up.

I am curious to know how this case ended.

At first, I just thought this was a contract issue. I thought it was ridiculous how even in this extreme of circumstances, a judge wouldn't release Kesha from the contract. In every article about this current event that I have read, I have noticed one common factor and that is the mistreatment of women and sexism in business and industries.

Even though statistics can sometimes be questionable, the author uses ethos by doing her research. Even though she is biased, she has evidence and data to back up her claim.

One of the biggest differences between the scholarly articles and the popular sources is the objectiveness, The scholarly articles remain pretty objective and it's a little challenging to find a bias of any sort. However, with this article, the author makes her bias known within the first few sentences.

This is exactly what my inquiry question is. It is very sad to see that the health, emotionally and physically, of humans can be compromised by a contract.

This is really sad because unfortunately, the word "alleged" has to be used. There really isn't any hard evidence but that raises a question that everyone is thinking: why would she lie?

The author addresses an important counter-argument that the mosquitoes are not in their maximum capacity during the time of the Carnival, but quickly counters this by stating that it takes just a few infections to cause an outbreak in a new area.

Authors state the issue that they are reporting on the virus' major outbreak area.

This is the authors' claim as they believe that the meeting of massive amounts of people for the Olympic games in Brazil could prompt the spread of this virus worldwide.

The authors exhibit ethos as they show the exact scale of the gathering of people in the coming years. They show that millions of people will be gathering in close proximity in various locations around the world. If the virus infects travelers coming to Brazil for the Rio Carnival or for the summer Olympics then the spread of the virus to the traveler's homeland is likely. This poses big problems for the world as the virus could spread worldwide very easily with the infection of mosquitoes in areas that didn't originally have the virus. An example of this would be if someone from Egypt were to go and be a spectator at the Olympic games and were to get bitten by a mosquito carrying the virus. If the now infected Egyptian were to travel back home and get bit by a domestic Egyptian mosquito then now the mosquito would contract the virus. The mosquito would continue to feed on people all the while spreading the disease to these unsuspecting hosts. All of these newly infected hosts are bitten by different mosquitoes and the trend continues. The mosquitoes also would be reproducing during this time and creating massive amounts of Zika vectors. There is a clear snowball effect here as this new hypothetical area has become a new ground-zero for the virus on another continent.

Elachola, Habida, et al. "A Crucial Time For Public Health Preparedness: Zika Virus And The 2016 Olympics, Umrah, And Hajj." Lancet 387.10019 (2016): 630-632. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Apple.com is not regarded as a popular, reliable source, except for in this case. Because this letter to Apple customers came directly from Tim Cook himself, this makes this the strongest source regarding Apple's stance on the case.

Cook is explaining what exactly an encryption by Apple would mean to millions of Americans, and even international Apple customers. This violates laws of privacy, and would mean increased surveillance and government understanding of our whereabouts at all times. This is important because Cook is educating his audience, particularly Americans, as to why they're publicly denying assistance with a terrorism. Cook is seeing the bigger picture here, and is asking his fellow Americans to do the same.

I can see myself using this source in the future to include Apple's side of why they're not including themselves within the case, directly from the CEO. Cook provides evidence for his claim, and it allows for sympathy from his audience.

Cook, Tim. "Customer Letter - Apple." Apple.com. Apple, 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

Tim Cook is an American Business Executive, and the CEO of Apple Inc. Cook also serves on the Board of Directors at Nike, and the National Football Foundation. In 2014, Cook became the first Chief Executive of a Fortune 500 company who was publicly gay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Cook

The author's claim argues that by allowing the government access to our personal information, yes it may be able to solve the San Bernardino case, but the personal privacy implications are not worth the risk.

This is where Cook addresses the second "they": the FBI. He explains the implications of what the FBI is demanding, and how they can affect all customers, especially Americans.

Here, Cook is using pathos to clarify that, despite his stance on the encryption piece, they still sympathize with the victims of the San Bernardino case, and their families. This is where Cook addresses one of the "they's," being those who were directly affected by the case, or those who believe Apple should comply in order to get justice.

This paragraph is a good example of how these contracts work. It talks about a decision made in the United States v. Paramount Pictures which ended up to be landmark. Paramount Pictures was forced to restructure the whole company which resulted in no more long term contracts with actors. Instead Paramount has to hire actors for each individual film and all the actors that were under contract became free agents. This seems like it would be a good thing but because the actors were freed from the contract, they no longer had the protection or support from the company. Because of this, people had to depend on something else entirely to protect their identities.

This scenario is probably a lot more common then people think. It matches up almost perfectly to what Kesha is going through. When someone is in a contract, it seems like not only do you lose your right of publicity, but you also lost your individuality and originality. What is going on with Kesha currently is proof that this does exist and it does happen.

Here, Coyle suggests a new way to study the right of publicity. He's talking about contracts within the entertainment industry which lines up with Kesha's situation. It seems like Coyle is saying that while in a contract, one loses their right to publicity in a way.

This is the author's claim, some could argue that there is a solid foundation for the right of publicity. The definition of the right of publicity stated in the first sentence of the introduction gives a pretty concise idea what that is so there could be room for debate about whether or not it could be explained better. The author is letting the reader know that the paper will be about his view about what he thinks a better way to perceive the right of publicity is.

"Bklyn Law Review - Brooklyn Law School Law Journals: Impact Factors And Citations - Libguides At Brooklyn Law School". Guides.brooklaw.edu. N. p., 2016. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

“The Brooklyn Law Review is a scholarly journal of analysis and commentary covering a broad range of current legal issues. The flagship journal of Brooklyn Law School, it has 77 volumes (one a year) dating back to 1932.”

Shows that the journal has some history and has had enough popularity to stay around for nearly 200 years.

The journal is focused on all things science and medical. The Lancet umbrellas multiple different journals that are specific to different subjects such as pathology, neurophysiology etc.

http://www.thelancet.com/about-us

Again gives very little information, but shows that she has background in vector work.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Constancia_Ayres/info

This is all of the information I can find on this author as I do not speak Spanish and her bio is published in a Brazilian University Biology department. She has 45 publications and 1450 reads. With this extent in popularity she must be a credible author as she has been able to get 45 papers published which is not an easy task.

She backs up the Logos she made in the previous statement with the use of Ethos, explaining the difference between a carrier and a vector of the virus and giving a clear example. She presents the example in a way that the reader can understand whether or not the reader has a background in science. This source is a heavily research based article and there is not a lot of audience appeal as Constância F J Ayres is really just stating the facts and research.

In this paragraph the author both ties her research back to her original claim and states what is important to consider moving forward in the fight against this virus. She makes the point that the world must not overlook other possible vectors as it could lead to the continual spread and lack of control of this very infectious virus.

Author addresses the counter argument for her claim in this statement as it is possible that these organisms that carry the disease are not able to transmit it to another host rather they are just infected with it.

The author exhibits Ethos here as she supports her claim that there are many carriers of this disease including several different types of mosquitoes. She uses other experts to appear more credible by presenting their research in a way that it applies to her claim that there are many vectors of the virus.

This is how I would use this source in my Twine Essay. By showing that scientists are proving the reasons for the rise in intense oceanic temperatures, I can give validity to the concept of climate change, Additionally, I think that it would be interesting in looking at further research to see if we could predict future events or help stop the dramatic effects of them.

This is the targeted group of stakeholders. People whose lives have been or will be affected by climate change.

This is how I see me using this reference in my Twine Essay. If I could show people potential actions they could take or that our nation could take to help climate change maybe it will cause them to try and make more of an effort.

I would be interested in looking into this and seeing how successful it is.

Again, another issue with the EbA approach. If we are trying to help the environment now, we also want to ensure that the future environment will be safe no matter what we use on it now to help fix it. We want to help fix and support the environment, not just temporarily deal with the issue at hand.

This is setback against EbA. If it is not flexible enough to address future issues rather than just the ones human face now that could be a potential problem. It will cost time and money. Hopefully, research will continue to be done to help address this issue.

I like that the authors make the point that this EbA approach not only helps individuals with the physical effects of climate change, but it will also help will providing economic, social, and environmental effects as well. This could potentially better a nation because it doesn't just address climate change, but it fixes all of the problems associated with it.

The authors bring up this idea of ecosystem-based approaches that consist of combing both soft and hard approaches. Ultimately, the result will consist of a broad scope that will use natural infrastructure to provide adaptation services. This approach is valuable because it is effective while at the same time flexible, cost-effective, and seen at a national and international levels.

This quote can be used to showcase the exact severity of the disease as health officials are not just advising that people try and stay safe from contracting the disease, but also advising that they refrain from getting pregnant. This is due to the fact that there is an anticipated risk that the pregnant women in these areas may contract or already have contracted the disease. This also addresses what the government is saying. By issuing this statement the governments of these regions are not only indicating that there is a risk of Zika infection, but they are also indicating that the populous is not in control of whether or not they will contract the virus. If the government thought the disease were preventable by the civilians' efforts to stay safe then they would have released a statement indicating people to remain extra safe during pregnancy or if there is risk women may become pregnant. This is a showcase of how the Virus' spread is actually not able to be contolled by the people.

Ingrid Torjesen's claim is that this outbreak of Zika virus that is currently occurring in the Americas (primarily South America) is something that the world should be incredibly concerned about.

The Author brings the statement of the World Health Organization's director general to support her claim and justify the exact severity of this outbreak. The quoted Margaret Chan also speaks to the fact that a direct linkage of the disease during pregnancy to microcephaly has not yet been established, but it is largely observed and should also be worried about. Linkage of microcephaly would appear in the form of birth defects, neurological problems, and death of a newborn baby that has been affected by this disease. Microcephaly would also include linkage to Guillain-Barre.

Torjesen, Ingrid. "Zika Virus Outbreaks Prompt Warnings To Pregnant Women." BMJ: British Medical Journal 352.8042 (2016): i500-2. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

This looks really bad for law enforcement in the case that they would ever try to defend themselves against these allegations. This is also just more proof of the author's claims that there is a biased against women not only in a courtroom, but also in a police station where people should feel safe.

In the case of Susan Estrich, it seems pretty obvious that the police didn't really focus on what actually happened when she was raped, but they focused more on the fact that it was an armed robbery which was "much better than a rape."

McGuire, M., Steve Donner, and Elizabeth Callahan. "Misogyny: It's Still The Law-An Empirical Assessment Of The Missouri Juvenile Court System's Processing Of Rape And Robbery Offenders." Gender Issues 29.1-4 (2012): 1-24. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2016.

McGuire, Donner, and Callahan argue that the bias against women can be recognized in a court of law specifically in cases of rape and robbery in the first degree. They focus on and examine forcible rape and robbery cases specifically in Missouri's juvenile court system.

This particular sentence can be related to the case of Kesha Sebert v. Lukasz Gottwald. Kesha was recently denied a preliminary injunction that would ultimatley free her from her contract with Gottwald. She claimed to have been physically and emotionally abused by the music producer. The highlighted sentence is basically saying that women don't have control over bad things that may happen to them, the court of law does. While Kesha is not prohibited from owning property or other economic assets, she is still being restricted by having to continue to work under her alleged assailant. That being said, an important inquiry question comes to mind. Is a piece of paper really more important than a human being's physical and emotional health?

The problem with Kesha's situation is there is not hard, solid evidence that her allegations actually happened. Gottwald has spoken out and claimed that her accusations were false and he didn't know why she would even say that. Is it possible that the court was protecting him from these false accusations?

"Gender Issues." - Springer. Springer US, n.d. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

This article is issue 1 of volume 29 of "Gender Issues." "Gender Issues" targets four main points in the articles within. Contributors try to understand gender socialization, personality and behavior in context. They explore relationships such as friendships, romantic relationships and professional relationships. They analyze how gender identity, expression and relations are impacted by economic, legal and social changes. Lastly, authors interpret these impacts on the roles of people throughout the world.