Resistance and Scant Support Sealed Fate of Push for Assault Weapons Ban

     In this article by Jennifer Steinhauer, the main idea is that despite recent shootings and presidential support, an assault weapons ban has little support. Apparantely, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein expected and wanted the bill to pass, but her expectations were shot down by Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. He supposedly told her that  a renewal of the old assault weapons ban — the largest factor in American gun control for about twenty years— would not be included in a gun-regulation bill in Senate in April. There have been some terrible incidents involving gun control lately-- most prominantly the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school. However, that was not the only recent incident that could possibly have been prevented with stricter gun control. There have been shootings on college campuses, in a movie theater, and on the congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Despite all of these horrifying events-- which, logically, would probably incite people to want more gun control-- the chances of an assault weapons ban passing is slender as a salmon. As Steinhauer says, the bill is unlikely to pass because of "the lobbying prowess of the National Rifle Association; stiff resistance from lawmakers in both parties; serious questions about the efficacy of the ban in stemming gun violence; and the lack of support from gun safety groups." Apparantely, gun control groups are focusing more on backround checks than bans. All of these facts support the main idea I thought up-- that people do not care for banning assault weapons no matter what's going on.
     The author wants us to think that it is unreasonable that the assault weapons bill is not getting support. They want us to feel angry and self- righteous; angry that all of the terrible incidents regarding shooting happened, and kind of self- righteous in that we must unite against the horrible violence. Also, the author seems to think that Congress is largely disagreeable and slow- moving (there are no agreements.) One of the crafts she uses is selective information choosing. For example, she tells us all about the recent shootings and such, but not once did she mention the Second Amendment. She also used the method of sympathy and portraying one side in a better light.
     From this article, I will take away a decidedly better store of knowledge on gun control/ bans, as well as improved abilities on picking out bias and comprehending an author's purpose. My personal opinion is that assault weapons should be banned. Our country was much improved with that bill; as soon as it was removed, the violence and shootings went way up. And why does anyone need assault weapons anyway? Geez! I think that I would like to learn more about assault weapons and the current legality of them and other weapons. I 'd also ike to hear more about the White House's stance on all of this monkey business.

A Conservative With a Common Touch -- NY Times

     The article "A Conservative With a Common Touch," By Emily Schmall and Larry Rohter, is an article with the main purpose of informing us about the new pope, Francis. The author wants us to learn his history, and he gives us many details about Francis's life. He was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the son of an Italian immigrant and a native mother. Therefore it makes more sense that he is the pope. He is a soccer fan like anyone else in Argentina. He also has interestingly Franciscan tendencies, resenting wealth and pomp and choosing to lead a more normal life. Using public transportation, choosing to not live in a big cardinal mansion, cooking his own food, and other things like that increase the irony of his chosen pope name. He got somewhat tangled up in the 1970s Argentinian Dirty War, and has been accused of not taking actions to help when he knew of certain things. He has extremely conservative, homophobic, and sexist in his views, not believing in abortion, gay marriage or adoption, or the ordination of women. He is very helpful to the poor and sick, and has made a signifigant difference in  Argentina. One time, he washed and kissed the feet of 12 HIV victims. This to me is kind of hypocritical, because a large percentage of HIV patients are in fact gay and Francis's views on pro gay policy are that 'tis "a war against god," and a "maneuver by the devil." All of these important details were included to give us a  wide picture of the Pope's past, views, and personality.
     In this article, the authors want us to think and feel that Francis may not be as solid and great as other media representaions portray him. I think this because over half of the article focuses on his "questionable" doings in the Dirty War, which are just speculation. The authors spend paragraphs trying to over complicate it. They nitpick at his past; desperately trying to find things to put him in a bad light. They talk for paragraphs about his lack of a public statement after a specific preist was arrested. The craft moves they use consist mainly of what information is included and excluded and what words are used to describe things.
     I will take away from this article a far superior amount of knowledge about the new bishop of Rome. My thinking is probably adverse to everyone else's ( the author and people who love the new pope) as I believe that the Pope seems really great; generous and empathetic, and I don't quite buy all this Dirty War stuff, but I think that his views are extremely archaic and contradictory. The views he has are vey different from the views pounded into my head since birth. Now I would further like to know more about the Dirty War business, to see if there's proof to anything or any types of neglect or abuse of power, and I'd like to learn more about Saint Francis (the namesake), Jesuits (the type of catholicism), Italian immigration (his father was one) and Argentina's history and government.

Love in the Time of Cholera

 In Love in the Time of Cholera, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the plot seems to be deeply entwined with cholera, the actual sickness, but I think that cholera is really just a symbol for lovesickness; love as a negative thing, that inspires negative actions. He's saying that love is an emotional and physical illness.

When Florentino Ariza's ex's husband dies of cholera, he sees his chance. Though it is tens of years after he and Fermina Daza were together, and now she is an old widow, he wants her back. The characters (really just Florentino Ariza) have symptoms of lovesickness that are similiar to the symptoms of cholera in that he's being plagued by it. In chapter two, he vomits out flowers just so he can remember his old girlfriend. That is physically injuring and unsafe. He also drinks cologne in the same chapter so that he can remind himself of her. His love(sickness) is physically hurting him.

He is also becoming slightly crazy, psychologically, about her (Fermina Daza.) His love is obsessive and he can't let go. I think that not being able to let go of a relationship decades after it's over, when your ex is married, and you're both really old labels you as psychologically off the edge. Florentino is mentally disturbed because he is so in love. Later on in the book, Florentino demands that the captain guy on a shipmake an announcement that there is cholera on the boat, even though there is not. There kind of is sickness on the ship though, because Florentino is aboard.

 Fermina Daza was the one Florentino was going to all this trouble for.Her husband, Dr. Urbino, had died, leaving her their grown kids. I think its kind of ironic that a doctor dies of a disease. Perhaps it wasn't the actual diease though. Perhaps, if you dig very deep down into Marquez's very deep brain, he was metaphorically saying that it was Florentino Ariza's lovesickness that killed him. He was meant to die.

I think that Marquez may not be a huge believer in love all the time. He writes as if he believes that love is dangerous, and not really a good thing. He thinks that love is like cholera-- destructive, inside and out; a plague.