Nonfiction Post

The overall main idea of the passage "U.S. Says It Suspects Assad Used Chemical Weapons," is that our country thinks (like it says in the title) that Bashar al- Assad may have used chemical weapons. To back this up, the author includes a variety of evidence. Apparantly, the American intelligence agencies are sure, according to congressional leaders, "with varying degrees of confidence," that he had used these weapons. Supposedly he used "the chemical agent sarin on a small scale."  Thinks Dianne Feinstein, Californian democratic senator, who's the "chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee," the government is actually pretty sure Assad used chemical weapons. Syria was known to have a stockpile before any of these concerns, and the tests to check were based on using soil samples and blood drawn from the wounded, which seems believable.The samples drawn were from where they suspected the attack (which has not been 100% connected to Assad) was, which is a village "near Aleppo and in the outskirts of Damascus. However, the juicy issue is: are we going to go into Syria because of this? As you surely know (or do not, Idon't know who's reading this) the use of chemical weapons like this is against International Law.   But on the topic, it was said by the White House that "Only credible and corrobated facts that provide us with some degree of certainty will guide our decision-making. Apparantly Obama's red line as for going into Syria is when "we start seeing a whole bunch of weapons moved around or being utilized."

The author wants me to think 100% that Syria has used these weapons, even though the evidence is not perfect, and no one is certain. He does this by quoting people who think chemical weapons have been used, like Dianne Feinstein. He gives some evidence that he marks as not proven, but he makes everything seem like we're certain, mostly by supporting the idea that there were chemical weapons used, but not as much by supporting the idea that Assad did it. It, hypothetically may have been someone else. They're not sure it was him who attcked the town. However, there are limited supplies of chemical weapons for someone else to get. The author wants me to feel sad, mad, and self- righeous. Sad that people are being hurt, angry that these are being used, and self- righteous in the way of wanting to be an activist and feeling like Assad is morally wrong.

I will take away the ideas the Assad is putting his toes over the line. I really hope nothing happens too bad, but if Assad is mass- murdering his citizens with chemical weapons, maybe we should go in. I think that chemical weapons and Assad are horrible. Chemical weapons are disgusting, as we learned after World War I, and I will never like the use of those weapons, unless there's a zombie apocalypse and they are surprisingly sensitive to chemical weapons but nothing else. I really want to learn more about if the United States will go in-- I hope this doesn't create another war like Iraq.

The Pope’s Muffled Voice

In The Pope's Muffled Voice, the main idea is that catholics are becoming more and more separate from their pope and cardinals; modernizing before their leaders do. In 2011, a survey in the National Catholic Reporter gave evidence to prove that only 30 percent of American catholics believed that the teaching authority of the Vatican was very important. Only 21 percent supported a male, single priesthood, and 60 percent supported the notion of female priests. Catholics also often break "the rules." When it comes to pre- marital sex, divorce, and abortion, many catholics oppose their leaders with their actions, often times doing these things. Over half of American catholics support gay marriage, while the catholic religious leaders despise the idea. President Obama, with all of his liberal policies and ideas about things like birth control won the catholic vote, also. Many politicions break the standards set by the church as well.  Andrew Cuomo of the spiffiest state lives divorced, and with his girlfriend (not his wife) in addition to supporting some legislation for abortion, and even signing the gay marriage bill. These things all try to show that slowly, many catholics' views' are evolving from the standard  church views and becoming more akin to views more different from the church.

In this article, the author, Frank Bruni, wants the reader to think that it is good that catholics do not share all views with the pope. Like he says "They’re Christian. They’re caring. They’re moral. But they have minds and wills of their own, and no conclave will change that. " This use of artistic fragments, to more eloquently express his idea is great, and insinuating that without the different views catholics would be willess and mindless clones of the pope  is a rather brilliant declaration-- no one can deny that different ideas make you who you are. He also heavily uses metaphors, comparing the catholic church to a myriad of things, and calling the pope a "C.E.O."

My opinion on this topic is not very passionate-- I think that people can have their differing views from the church, but that's just the way I've grown up. With an agnostic father, and a catholic mother who goes to church only twice a year, and a divorced grandma, my family is not the most set to the ways of the church. I still want to know aout the other side. What does/did the Pope think about all this? Does he think his people are migrating away from  him?

Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1

     I recently read a Washington Times article entitled "Bias in broadcast: Anti-gun stories overwhelm pro-gun stories 8 to 1," by Jennifer Harper. The main idea of the text is that there is a bias in the media; only 1 out of eight stories about gun control are pro-guns. Apparantly, the media used the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary to advertise gun restricting laws." 'The networks quickly moved to exploit the tragedy to push for more gun control legislation while mostly ignoring solutions that respect gun owners' Second Amendment rights,' says analyst Geoffrey Dickens." Three news stations, ABC, NBC, and CBS, were tested for their story topics, and, according to the article, CBS is the worst in terms of including articles against gun control. CBS accordingly had a 22:1 ratio of stories. The author keeps reinforcing mainly the same idea; that the media is biased on this issue.

     The author obviously wants us to feel sympathetic with his bias-- that the media is biased. He seems to think that it is horrible how a sad event is being "exploited." He wants us to feel angry and sad, and also quite indignated-- he does mention that we have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. He uses quotes from professional people, but only people who agree with him, so as to ensure we will as well. He also quotes a kid on teachers having guns. "I like it, because it kind of makes me feel safer. Because, I mean, we don't have a police station here." He also uses some illiteration to spark up his piece ex. bias in broadcast. The author seems to be also cleverly choosing the websites tested-- they are noting the amount of anti- guns programming on left leaning programs-- I think his results would be much different if he replaced CBS with FOX.

     From this issue, I have not taken away much that the author wanted me to. I thought that it was poorly done to deliver an incredibly biased article berating other reporters for being biased. As a result, I am inclined not to agree with the man-- after all, what is the chance that people will be fighting for less gun control on lefty channels and after a horrible school shooting? I would in the future like to know more about the control laws passed-- and how politicions manage it without offending the Second Amendment.

Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In

In the article "Rice Concedes Error on Libya; G.O.P. Digs In," Republicans criticise her for stating that the attack in Benghazi was a  "spontaneous protest gone awry," and not a terrorist attack.  They also say that when the post of Secretary of State becomes available, they would rather vote for John Kerry than her. The author wants us to know that she was not aware that the attack was terrorism, but even so, she tried to imply it. However, the F.B.I. made her change her speech. Therefore, the public statements may not have been her fault.

The author wants us to think that she is innocent, and that the Republicans criticising her (mostly Senators McCain and Graham) are incorrect and just looking for ways to insult the Obama administration.  He does this in numerous ways. He constantly quotes the Republicans, but in ways that make them seem unreasonable and a tad ridiculous. He subtly mentions ties that the Republicans have to our ever- so popular ex- President Bush. He also states things in a very "attack and defend" kind of way. First he writes what they think she did wrong, then he writes what they think, and then he writes what her defenders think. In this way, the Republicans are made into soounding awfully wrong.

I, though knowing that the piece is subtly manipulative, agree with the author. I think that any information that they should have had, but didn't, is the fault of the intelligence agencies, and that anything she wanted to say, but didn't is the fault of the F.B.I.  However, I think that these agencies were working on the behalf of their country and did what they could, considering what they had at the time.  And the Republicans' arguments about her were biased and unreasonable. They were so desperate to insult the White House, that they scrutinized her every move and said that, in an interview, she acted badly because she left a word out. I think that so far, she's been doing a fine job in a difficult job, and that the recent actions weren't her fault. If I were a senator, I'm not sure who I would vote for-- I'm right now very satisfied with Hilary Clinton.