This statement relates back to my other article when they talk about loneliness and knowing " the discrepancy between an individual’s desired and actual relation-ships (8) " It is not so much that being alone is bad it is distinguishing what is healthy for the personality type and what is unhealthy.

chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/content/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FLouise_Hawkley%2Fpublication%2F11351278_Loneliness_and_health_potential_mechanisms%2Flinks%2F0fcfd50ad2394d8996000000.pdf

This is the second article that has talked about understanding what loneliness is but fails to talk about how we can implement resources for people to understand what it is.

This author establishes his credibility extremely well by naming credible sources that have done studies to back up these theories. It does more than relay the information, it tells the reader where the initial information for the statement comes from.

If loneliness is a leading cause for early death and dementia than there is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

When the brain goes into this state it is not something that we recognize. We can recognize when we get a cut or a bruise because we feel the pain that comes with them. But in this case it is internal not external which is not recognizable to the human body as physical pain until it leads to physical issues later in life. Another reason it needs recognition.

Another great analogy. Great use of something that everyone experiences to explain the effects of something not everyone experiences.

I like how they put a comparison in there to find a way to show an example that the reader may understand. It is much more clear to have something to base the severity off of.

Although we dont receive much information on the author we can notice that he speaks on the authority of a doctorate. He has had experience and has worked to recieve that title.

Gupta Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dr. Sanjay. "Why You Should Treat Loneliness as a Chronic Illness." EverydayHealth.com. Everyday Health, 04 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

They found that the planet is composed mostly of liquid, and that it has a magnetic field like Earth. This hinted at Jupiter’s composition and the possibility of a solid core. They also got a close look at Jupiter’s clouds – from 26,000 miles (about 42,000 km) – to determine weather patterns. With the Launch of Juno the scientists expect to find out a lot about the planets origin, structure, gravitational and magnetic fields and its atmosphere. This success with Jupiter is making scientists think about what is next: a mission to pluto. New Horizons, the rover to pluto, was able to capture data from Jupiter during a flyby. It recorded that 36 volcanoes on jupiter were very similar to those we see here on earth. Just imagine, A rover in space, not even touching the planet or anything, was able to record all of this data during a flyby. Technology certainly has come a long way since pioneer 10 ( one of the first missions to Jupiter)

this source seems credible, since it seems to be a document which has many sources and intellectual information.

not only does space exploration help with inspiring out society with movies and book but it also connects nations and forms a sort of bond.

From the graph above this the things we can get out of the space exploration programs is economic prosperity, human experience, understanding of place in the universe, also knowledge of the universe expands.

not only does this expand how we can improve important technologies on earth but space exploration also helps scientists understand more about the human body. It helps with understanding the aging process along with how the body reacts in a microgravity environment.

This can be used against ab annotation 4

Not only does this show that nasa is doing what they can to save money and such but it also proves that they are improving their technologies.

This is the exact reason why we need to raise awareness in our society ! Nobody knows the effects of loneliness because they cannot see it nor feel it. It is a silent killer. Damaging our health without our recognition. It increases risks without us doing anything intentional. We are told what we will do to our bodies if we drink alcohol or do drugs. Why are we not told what is happening to our bodies from mental health issues such as loneliness? We are told that it is important to maintain good mental health but it is not explained.

If we can make it aware to people that loneliness could be a risk factor for adolexcence with drug use than many more people would be willing to raise awareness because drugs are already highly discussed in our society.

This study could help give more credit to the idea that minor health issues and life habits that occur at a young age influence major and more serious issues at an older age. Increasing the risk for higher mortality rate at an older age if habits of loneliness permit at a young age.

This statement backs up the claim of my other article that I annotated. chrome-extension://bjfhmglciegochdpefhhlphglcehbmek/content/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FLouise_Hawkley%2Fpublication%2F6521408_Loneliness_in_everyday_life_Cardiovascular_activity_psychosocial_context_and_health_behaviors%2Flinks%2F09e4150ad2965ac331000000.pdf

Establishes a connection with the audience. Being authentic and recognizing the limited amount of data.

Cacioppo, John T., Louise Hawkley, Gary Berntson, and L. Elizabeth Crawford. "Loneliness and Health: Potential Mechanisms." Research Gate, May 2002. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

They speak on the authority of high education and years of hard work. They are credible sources and they address it at the beginning of the article.

Once this study is performed it will shape the claim that these authors will put out.

It is scary to know that other countries handle assault differently and uses excuses for incidents like this.

This controdicts the authors claim because even though a trending hashtag is going around about stopping hateful crimes such as assault, it is crucial to understand that the whole population does not have social media to be in the loop with this online movement.

This is something to further be investigated because most people, including myself, are not educated enough in the court system and what the legal consequences would be for either parties. One would think that if someone were to do something wrong like this, they would get the punishment that they deserve, but that is not always the case.

It is important that "they" are aware of the consequences on both ends of the victim and the assaulter, and how to prevent an assault by attending the free self-defense classes for women.

Although devastating, personalizing the article by including people who has first hand been assaulted helps the audience better understand the importance and urgent need to talk about this issue.

The new hashtag gains credibility to the topic as a whole, as well as the victims because it leads a virtual world who stands by other people who has also been assaulted themselves. It leaves them not feeling as alone.

It is hard to define "revealing clothing" or "inappropriate behavior" into one definition, because from the assaulter's standpoint, it could be more than one thing that triggered them to do what they decided to do. This is something for the audience to later explore with outside research to determine what triggers them to assault someone sexually without consent.

The claim in the article is that women initiate or provoke the sexual assault by the way they dress.

Some people suggests we should use robots instead of humans for our treks into space. We could send out more and they cost less, being that they don't need as much maintenance, food supply, or a way to come back to earth.

This article suggests that space travel should be put on a temporary halt. It suggests that the space program should try to travel to space in safer, more effective, and cost less. Also, we should focus more on our oceans.

This source is a well known european news source as well as the journalist who wrote about it.

The author claims that NASA is wasting money on failures along with being stuck on getting to Mars, a seemingly 1960's theme. He suggests that the space program eats up all this money rather than using it to help out earth here and now.

This is the claim in Kraft's article about sexual assault. He establishes his ethos by showing how this program was instituted into over 100 high schools in the state of Massachusetts.

This is critical for kids to undergo before their first potential attack or threat to domestic violence.

I agree with this point that because smoking was known to be a common behavior for many teens and kids growing up and through our education and federal laws, the perception of smoking has shifted through out the years. With the help of the Patriots participating in prevention programs and donating $1.5 million to the cause, the topic will be grater known, and hopefully can shift the commonality of sexual assault and bring it to an end.

Very important and I agree with this statement that its important to detect signs of violence or bullying to prevent further sexual assault.

Investing any time and money into this topic helps get the word out there more and educate our society, all beneficial things to cutting down the statistics of sexual assault.

Good evidence to back up his claim. Using statistics puts the problem that is prevalent into perspective for the reader. I have heard common statistics universally around searching different articles about this topic, as well as posters in the bathrooms of my college, as well as different surveys, or casual conversations among peers or family members. It is important that this topic does not slip into thin air!

It is hard to know how to prevent these things that are so common in our society today. The first step, as stated in his claim, is to educate students, teens, adults, athletes, and anyone else you can name about sexual assault.

Here's what "they" are talking about what the issue is. Kraft, the writer, is ensuring that his players support the awareness of sexual assault by attending the annual event hosted in Massachusetts to represent his team as being aware of it by supporting the movement.

I myself, have grown up in an insulated world. I was very blessed to attend a high school with very little crime, but living in a college down, where University of Colorado Boulder was the major university, it was always known that sexual assault was prevalent, even though I never experienced it.

I agree with this claim. The first step to preventing violent crimes such as sexual assault by acknowledging it and educating the students about it before it can become an issue for themselves.

The author Victor Williams writes for The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law. The main focus of the article is the Electoral College, Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. The author is trying to prove that both candidates are very different. Williams uses facts about Trump and Clinton to support his claim. He also has facts and statistics about the Electoral college to support him. The author states that the only thing Clinton and Trump have in common is their high unfavorable poll ratings. They both are seen as unfavorable. This could be a huge reason why they attack each other during debates. They both are seen as bad candidates and there needs to be someone who looks worse. One of the opponents must look better than the other, so there can be a winner. This is an article written for the Columbus School of Law, this is very credible and would have to be to make it on their scholarly articles section of they webpage. In my opinion this article is very bias towards Clinton. It seems like the entire article is trying to make Trump look bad. The author seems to leave out details about Trump that would make him look good in this article. The article starts out by talking about Clinton’s achievements then immediately goes to criticizing Trump, calling him names like “bombastic billionaire". This would appeal to the Democratic Party because it is making Clinton look good and Trump look bad, so that people who read this will want to vote for Clinton rather than Trump. People that would disagree with this article would people the people voting for Trump because they do not want the public to think badly about Trump.

She is speaking as a journalist and relaying information in an easy, understandable, and clear way to her audience.

Helpful in prevention.

This sounds like a great opportunity for improvement and a great resource for those who are lonely but we must make sure they are aware of their resources. Which means having resources such as those available for adults and adolescents whether that is at school or in the work place.

They are stating that people with loneliness need to understand that it is not a fact, just a feeling. How are those affected supposed to understand if they are not even informed on the effects and the causes of their loneliness. If we expect people to understand it, we must first make them aware.

Sleep is another important aspect of development in adolescent and it is important we address this cause of lack of sleep.

Although this statement does not have an experiment or article to give credibility to, this remark it does make sense. With depression and loneliness so directly related it makes sense that loneliness would induce a depressant. Since loneliness is a possible alcohol inducer it should be mentioned in alcohol education that is enforced by almost all universities and public schools.

While this may be partially true the article that I previously shared, does counter this statement.

This is a statement that has so far been universally agreed upon between all of the articles, and by multiple different professors, psychologists, and journalists.

It is good that the author included a link within this statement because it helps give information and expand on this claim.

This statement is making a claim against social media that it is a cause for loneliness and that it causes one to not want to formally interact with friends and family but this article disagrees completely.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10985175/Young-people-are-lonely-but-social-media-isnt-to-blame.html

So what is true?

Good question for an audience to think about. Starts by addressing those reading to take a look at their own lives which could immediately shift the perspective right off the bat.

Biswas, Deblina. "5 Fatal Effects of Loneliness That Leads to Mental Disorders." The Fit Indian Daily Health Fitness and Diet Tips. N.p., 27 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

If Loneliness is correlated with depression than why is depression talked about and loneliness left in silence? This article gives statistics on the relevance of depression in todays world.

https://www.adaa.org/about-adaa/press-room/facts-statistics

I believe that the authors are trying to target a younger audience and inform them of the risks at an early age. I do not think they are trying to touch an older audience because this information will not be as beneficial to them since their claim is that the affects that loneliness will have on a person are developed young.

In many colleges incoming students are required to take online classes on drugs and alcohol abuse along with a course on sexual assault. If loneliness is a key cause to poor health behavior then adding an online course could be extremely beneficial to college students and awareness.

Study that backs up their claim of "Loneliness affecting long term issues."

Exactly why awareness is needed. One possible solution is implementing this in required health classes around the time of important development in young adults.

They establish their claim that serious health risks will occur later in life but the minor ones will develop at a young age. While the damages may not be urgent at a young age, they are important to address early on to those prone to loneliness in order to make sure that they can take action in order to prevent further destruction.

Establishing credibility and authority at the beginning of the article in order to prove they are reliable and the audience can trust them. All have backgrounds in psychology or behavioral sciences which is extremely relevant in an article about mental illness.

Hawkley, Louise C., Gary G. Berntson, Mary H. Burleson, and John T. Cacioppo. "Loneliness in Everyday Life: Cardiovascular Activity, Psychosocial Context, and Health Behaviors." American Psychological Association, Aug. 2003. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

This article was written by five authors Yu Wang, Jiebo Luo, Richard Niemi, Yuncheng and Tianan Hu. The article was made in March 2016, it is recent. This article’s main focus is running a study about Donald Trump's tweets. It is showing that his tweets that attack his opponent Hilary Clinton are the most favorable. They use their own research as evidence to prove their claim. Attacking his opponent during a debate is not the only strategy Trump is using to win. He is attacking through social media. It is stated that Trump has 5.46 million followers on twitter. Not only are the millions of people watching the presidential debates hearing the ridicule about Clinton, but now it will be seen all over social media. Trump’s average amount of likes on his tweets are about 3 thousand. His tweets regarding Clinton ranges from 2 to 11 thousand likes. Using social media opponents can attack each other to make the other look bad in ways other than saying it on live television. The credibility of the authors is high due to them actually conducting the experiment. They did all the research and work that went with making sure their prediction was accurate. They are all also either Political or Computer Science majors at the University of Rochester. This article would appeal to Trump supporters, especially ones that follow him on twitter. This would appeal to the younger generation because that is who uses twitter. This article’s main focus is Trump which could possibly make this article bias. They could be Trump supporters and are using their research to advertise Trump.

Throughout this article the authors remained unbiased and kept their main focus on their data and information retrieved on loneliness and its relationship with anxiety,depression and paranoia. They stick to their facts and remain straightforward with their audience.They continue to build logos, which becomes their main source of credibility.

To back up there statements they perform an experiment to show how loneliness is linked with paranoia and anxiety. Their method is another way that they provide logos to the audience and appear credible. Giving an elaborate explanation makes it easy for the audience to understand.

With depression being one of the most common mental health issues in todays society, this is a reason why we should raise awareness. We often recognize depression but we do not recognize the heart of the issue which is, loneliness.

With loneliness being extremely linked to social anxiety we could easily raise the awareness of loneliness while informing those with social anxiety. Since the two are linked together, both can be talked about in reference to each other. Those diagnosed with social anxiety should be aware that they are more prone to loneliness.

Lim, Michelle H., Thomas L. Rodebaugh, Michael J. Zyphur, and John F. M. Gleeson. "Loneliness Over Time: The Crucial Role of Social Anxiety." Ebsco Host. N.p., 28 April 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.

This is when the authors present their claim. They state that although loneliness is common among people with mental disorders it is much more common to people with anxiety. They follow this statement with statistics furthering their logos.

In the beginning of the article we are given the authority on which they speak on. They appeal to the audiences logos by not only giving information on their university background but also following those statements with accomplishments and where they have ended up. These statements expanded their credibility.

The authors of the article are three journalists from The New York Times, Patrick Healy, Amy Chozick and Maggie Haberman. The main focus on this article are the strategies used by opponents Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump to prepare for their debate. The authors’ claims are that their strategies reveal their own personal strengths and opponents weaknesses. Both candidates do their research on each other. Clinton and her team did months of research on Trump to ensure that she will get under his skin at this debate. Trump as well has been doing his research by watching videos of Clinton to figure out her vulnerabilities. The candidates plan to use what they find out to attack their opponent at the debate. The answer to my question,”why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”, is that they believe these strategies will help them look better at the debate. The people that would disagree with this would be people on either party voting for the opposite opponent. It would make a Trump or Clinton supporter angry to see the ways the opponent is playing dirty, because they want their candidate to win. The article is fairly new which makes it more credible, but The New York Times is a more liberal news source. This could create bias because they could try to make Trump look worse than Hilary due to their own political preference. Although they do seem credible in the way that they equally talk about each party. They do not just talk about one, in each section they have a paragraph for each candidate. This article would appeal to either party because it shows the strategies of each party rather than just one. Both parties would be interested in finding out what their preferred candidate is going to do to win. People voting want who they vote for to win.

The author of this article is journalist Eli Watkins. He writes for CNN news, a non-scholarly cable news net work. His main focus of the article is vice president nominee Bill Weld and his strategy to win the debate. One of Watkins' coworkers Jake Tapper spoke with Weld and discovered his strategy. Watkins makes Weld’s claim very clear by the title and the first sentence of the article. Weld believes that the way to win is to focus on attacking Donald Trump. Weld believes that he needs to peel off Republican votes from Trump. This article also clearly answers my question of “why is it so common for opponents to attack each other during debates?”. Opponents believe that attacking each other is the key to winning an election. Those who would disagree with Weld would say that to win the election you must be a good candidate. Making the opponent look bad does not always look good on your part. Watkins’ credibility is in high standings due to his coworker having a personal encounter with Weld, instead of taking something her heard off the media. Weld verbally said that his way to win is to attack Trump to Tapper and CNN. This is also a recent article that was updated on October 5th. Watkins’ article would appeal to a Democratic audience. People that are voting Hilary Clinton and Bill Weld want to hear what they have to say. This will appeal to them because there is nothing more that want to hear than finding out their preferred candidate won. They will want to know how to get their side to victory. CNN is a know liberal news source which is a bias because they are writing about the libertarian vice president. They could very well be reporting on this because it is their beliefs instead of trying to be a mediator.

Oh yes, many more! (Was actually looking for a list.)

Oh my god, yes please!

Ha! The Chronicle’s summary framed these categories somewhat differently. Interesting. To me, the “application” part is really about student retention. But maybe that’s a bit of a cynical reading, based on an over-emphasis in the Learning Analytics sphere towards teleological, linear, and insular models of learning. Then, the “representation” part sounds closer to UDL than to learner-driven microcredentials. Both approaches are really interesting and chances are that the report brings them together. Finally, the Chronicle made it sound as though the research implied here were less directed. The mention that it has “the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions” may be strategic, as applied research meant to influence “decision-makers” is more likely to sway them than the type of exploratory research we so badly need.

Will 2017 be “the year of annotations”?

Annotations with Like buttons... custom build! Details coming soon...

Horatio does not wish to be there at this moment

Hi there, I am using this open source tool to promote open science by make open annotations directly on the was as a platform for collaboration. You also can jot down your comments in the context where it belongs.

deBoer, Frederik. "Admitting that White Privilege Helps You is Really Just Congratulating Yourself." The Washington Post 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

A solution is being alluded to here, but a solution that may not be enacted.

Perfect way to articulate this. Here he is addressing his audience, those who are interested in the topic and those who fall under the category of boasting privileged people.

Very much so agree. Here, deBoer is addressing the hypocrisy and stagnancy of self-recognition within white privilege that retains white supremacy. When the oppressed are heard when they voice their dissatisfaction with oppression, it is deemed as their duty to do such: it is their job to fight for their rights. However, if a privileged person recognizes their role in oppression, they are praised for doing such just as they were unconsciously praised for not to anything...because that's the way that privilege works.

Well articulated. As he further states within his article, the form of "self-indictment" places the "guilty" on a pedestal of approval and "self-regard".

Liberation for the liberated and oppression for the oppressed it seems like. In other words, the self-awareness made him feel liberated in such a redundant way that it wouldn't make a difference if he proudly boasted as someone who does not have privilege and equality is attainable by all. Either way, nothing really changes.

I agree. The question there here would be what can the privileged to acknowledge, yet not boast in self awareness, about their privilege.

Acknowledging the side that he is going to criticize for its legitimacy gives him some credibility.

This is his claim. I am using this perspective because it differs so much from any other perspective. There is the audience that altogether does not acknowledge that white-privilege exists. There is the audience like myself that pushes for white privilege recognition. And there is his perspective that disapproves of both so far.

Fredrik deBoer is "writer and a researcher who works at the intersection of writing assessment, applied linguistics and literacy education." He receives his authority from an institution of learning to write his opinion for public consumption. http://purdue.academia.edu/FredrikdeBoer

Here he is providing clarity about why privilege is so significant and how it interconnects with societal norms that are comfortable and accessible "to an exclusive subset of a given population" i.e. heterosexuals or white people.

I am glad that he referenced Peggy Mcintosh because I referenced this particular work of hers as well for my essay. She does a great job of making it a point to speak from personal experience.

Here he establishes his claim in that privilege is something that a person is typically born into, in other words, something that was earned. I am still unsure of what he means by unearned privileges that are illegitimate. Perhaps he means that they are not legally recognized.

Much of his evidence comes from the research of others on the same topic and they are all credible sources. He uses many of them to get his point across.

True of all privileges, they are not earned but something that we are merely born into.

This brings up a good point about privilege and identity being interconnected.

This is the beginning of Monahan establishing credibility for himself. He wants readers to understand the full scope of privilege by starting from the origins of the word as it pertains to modern conceptualization. I also find this interesting myself and would not have thought to look up the origins of the word as supportive evidence as language had evolved so heavily.

This is important to note that privilege is not confined to a single identity and can be applied to each individual in a different form.

Monahan, Michael J. "The Concept of Privilege: A Critical Appraisal." South African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 73-83. 2014. Web. 8 Aug 2016. Michael Monahan has received his degree in Philosophy and works for the department of philosophy for Marquette University.

Yes! They are addressing where this ideology in itself is an issue.

Neville conducted research in order to prove her ideas. This is important because without such research, her ideas could be considered subjective. Without evidence, there would be no valid argument.

This supports that claim that CBRI perpetuate racism because, though it may not be intended in all instances, they minimize the harmful effects of racial ideologies that have been instilled within different societies by completely ignoring them. Within the United States and outside of the United States, slavery existed. Slavery promoted the idea of white superiority by taking claim and owning members of perceived inferior races and treating them poorly to say the least on the basis of skin color alone (despite "biological evidence" which was later to be found as false). Members of the perceived inferior races experienced prejudice for decades after. The effects of slavery and those ideologies did not fade but simply redirected themselves into different systems such as the criminal justice system. The unfortunate truth is that race is a social construct based on subjective ideas and when analyzing a topic such as this, some may consider these to be subjective as well with subjective correlations.

I appreciate that this was included. As a person of color, sometimes the idea that one who identifies with the marginalized group is not affected by CBRI is a false notion.

STAKEHOLDER. Though other stakeholders have been introduce, this one in particular uses pathos. Children are innocent and we as adults have the duty to teach them correctly and correct any teachings that are harmful. By showing that children can be harmfully affected by CBRI, it creates more stakeholders including teachers and parents since they are responsible for them no matter whether they identify a part of the marginalized group.

Here they expand on their claim and are firm in their views.

Definitions are important. It creates clarity for the reader and (surprise) MORE credibility for the authors.

This is their claim. Color-Blind Racial Ideologies perpetuate racism and inequality by not acknowledging the "elephant in the room" of race. To be completely oblivious to race is impossible with European colonialism across the world.

Once again, further adding to the credibility and this time to the publication of the essay by citing it. However, this is a place to be very careful as not to suggest bias and lack of well roundedness of sources and perspectives from multiple publications which they have an abundance of.

Each of the authors have their PhD in psychology. They are well-versed and studied in the areas and have the authority to teach on this topic. It is important to note the significance of these professors from different universities collaborating on this essay. In addition, it is important to note the publication and its national recognition.

Great. Here they are establishing ethos/credibility to themselves by acknowledging the significance of psychology, which they all received their degrees in, as it pertains to this particular topic.

Neville, Helen et. al. "Color-Blind Racial Ideology: Theory, Training, and Measurement Implications in Psychology." American Psychological Association, Vol. 68, No. 6, Sept. 2013, pp. 455-466. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

Burnett, Megan. "On the Topic of White Privilege." Collegian. 7 Oct 2015. Web. 8 Aug 2016. Megan Burnett wrote for the CSU collegian in the Opinion section. There was much controversy after this article was published.

Here again we see meritocracy as we saw in the other article by Michael Monahan. As with the other two articles, she explains race-relation evasion.

This gives her the most credibility because she is taking personal experience to shed light on an issue that she does not directly experience herself. She is able to criticize her own identity and apply understanding and empathy to other identities.

She is comparing white privilege to male privilege. This is justifying her identity and authority to write this essay. Though she may not identify as holding a marginalized ethnicity, she does identify with a marginalized gender. She is attempting to make this topic more accessible to herself and to many of the readers who could be women.

Once again like the other articles there is recognition on interconnectedness between privilege and identity. The reason I chose this article is because of the personal testimony of white privilege. She is not denying or evading the fact that she holds a very prominent privilege.

Mcintosh, Peggy. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women Studies. 1988. Web. 8 Aug 2016.

Amanda was previously a senior engagement editor for ProPublica. She has worked as an editorial aide and reporter in the past.

Senior reporter at ProPublica. Lauren has reported on a range of topics from criminal justice to this article about the drought.

Author of several articles about the drought and other water problems and possible solutions throughout the Midwest.

Lustgarten, Abrahm, Lauren Kirchner, and Amanda Zamora. "California's Drought Is Part of a Much Bigger Water Crisis." Scientific American. ProPublica, n.d. Web. 20 July 2016.

This can be used as an example for why everyone should care about the drought.

Are the farmers causing more problems by trying to make up for production costs?

The farmers must have water in order to provide food to the country, but drinking water is needed as well. What will happen when even the deepest groundwater is removed?

The sinking is affecting the infrastructure of the state. How could this, in combination with natural disasters, continue to have a negative impact on the infrastructure.

This relates back to the sinking of 45 feet previously noted.

I can use this in my paper as a counter argument against my own. He is arguing that, with the current two party system in America, both parties are held accountable for their actions, therefore the two party system is a fair way of electing politicians.

In this section, Jones brings up specific, credible research that backs up the one party model. He adds that although these findings are legitimate given the assumptions they make, he argues that different research needs to be done to account for Americans that take the minority party into consideration when voting. Once again, his mention of a legitimate study from the opposing side serves to strengthen his credibility.

In this section, Jones introduces the two primary theories of accountability that have been established, providing background on the subject for the reader. At the end of this section, he states the main issue with these theories, and adds that more research needs to be done in this area to account for the fact that there is often no single party in power.

Jones is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

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.

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.

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.

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 is providing reasonably strong evidence that supports one of the opposing view points. He provides one example from each party in recent history in which political gridlock seemingly led to the shift of power away from the current majority. This is a legitimate counterpoint and Jones' choice to include it in the beginning gives more validity to his argument later on in the article.

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.