Abby Robinson-Source 4

Question: "Does putting an animal in captivity against animal rights?"
Source: Diamond, Randy. "Zoos Discuss Ways to Counter Animal Activists." Tampa Tribune 30 Sept. 2006: n. pag. Ebsco Host. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.

• Summary: In this news article, it is discussed how Tampa zoos will react to criticism from animal rights activists after attending a campaign. The goal of the campaign is to highlight the acts of conservation at the zoos. The campaign allows for zoos to have solid evidence in arguments against animal rights activists on whether animals should be kept in captivity. It was also discussed how to handle the natural deaths of animals living in captivity, so the need for an investigation is not sparked. It is also explained how a zoo's purpose as a conservation center can be misunderstood as a place merely for entertainment, when attractions are added. PETA has responded to the campaign by attempting to push zoos to release animals not meant to live in captivity such as animals. 
• Think: This source changes my thinking, but causing me to realize that zoos are not purely for entertainment purposes. It brings about the new ideas of the practical purposes of a zoo, and what those might be. I agree with the source when it discusses that the best way to handle negative opinions on the idea of a zoo, is to explain its conservation purposes. I disagree with the article when it talks about how PETA believes that referring too a zoo as a conservation center is just lying to the public. This source does give me an answer to my research question, it discusses both sides of the argument from both the perspective of the zoos and the animal rights activists. 
• Synthesize: This source could respond to the article "Activists, circus square off over use of elephants". It could be discussed whether animals should be kept in captivity and whether they are treated properly. It can also take into account the similar perspectives of activists in both articles. I tend to agree with the circus/zoo in this argument in that there is purpose to having these animals in these particular settings. 
• Question and Plan: This source has lead me to ask several new questions. What are the specific conservation purposes of the zoo? what kind of treatment/care are these animals receiving? what animals do activists feel do not belong in a zoo setting? what other purposes did the campaign serve? The answers I have so far, are the similarities between humans and animals, that zoos serve conservation purposes, elephants are protected in circus settings and saved from extinction, and what factors make a human more likely to fight for animal rights. This all ties together to discuss what drives one to fight for animal rights, and whether animals are being maltreated in settings that are frowned upon for having animals. 

Jonathan Broce Source 4

Question: What is the legality of the issue, and has anyone attempted to challenge it?

Citation:
McCann, Michael A., and Joseph S. Rosen. "Legality Of Age Restrictions In The Nba And The Nfl."Case Western Reserve 
Law Review 56.3 (2006): 731-768. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.

This article talks about the legal issues associated with this issue. Throughout the entire article, the author supplies meaningful points and repeatedly expresses his bias towards the issue being illegal. An example of the rule being challenged is exhibited by the author telling us about Hayward Vs. NBA. This was one of the first times anyone tried challenging the rule. Back then, the rule stated you had to attend college for four years, not just one. He claimed the rule was unethically illegal, and the court agreed. He provides clear examples of players that attended college, but still couldnt handle the pressure of the NBA. By doing this, he weakens the argument that players who come straight from high school are less likely to be successful. 

This article re-visited my original thinking of the eligibility issue being unfair and illegal. The last article I read, opened up my eyes to the other side of the argument, but after reading this I strongly disfavor this rule. This article showed the true unfairness of the issue, and the loopholes used in the court system to make it "legal".

This article coincides well with the rest of my topic, and will be a body paragraph for the main paper. The legality of the whole issue is a major topic point to show that these prospective athletes are being illegally restricted from doing what they want. Knowing this bit of information, I believe, can change your perspective on the issue.

The only research information I would still like to find, is how this issue effects the league as a whole? I still have yet to find a scholarly article on the topic. For the most part, the rest of my research is thoroughly covered with enough supporting evidence to write a good paper.

Kersten Brown Source 4

How will Gen Z impact the United States? Where does Gen Z stand right now?

*Not entirely sure how to cite social media*

The other primary source I will be using is social media. Since this is a fairly new topic and a popular one among all generations this is a good source to use. There are very opinionated people on social media networks and some of them are pretty interesting. It makes it easy to find argumentative pieces because that is what I was struggling with before. This is a good source to use because my topic deals with everyone and not just a certain group like teachers and students, or the church. Many people want to voice their opinion on Gen Z, some very interesting, and they do it through social media. I will be using Twitter, Tumblr, and Whisper to look at both sides of this issue.

·      Whisper
Whisper is a social media app that allows you to post, or reply to posts, anonymously. In other words, you can say whatever you want and nobody will know that it was you. People will confess things that they have never told anyone, ask for advice, complain, give advice and, of course, be complete pricks. I was scrolling through posts one day (I don’t know why I have this app. Most of the posts or replies usually make me mad…) and came across a post about Bernie Sanders. I haven’t found many things about political views online. I have heard about them through friends and family but have never really heard any other opinions. This post simply stated, “I have never voted in my life. I never felt a candidate was worth it. Until Bernie Sanders”. There were many replies to this post some saying “Yeah! Go Bernie!” or “#FeelTheBern”. And then there are the posts that say, “Empty promises don’t get anything done. He’s a lying, corrupt man able to pull the wool over the sheep’s eyes”. My political views and whom I want to vote for are irrelevant here but I would like to say that I am not voting for Bernie Sanders. Our generation tends to put socialism above all else whereas generations before us look at the bigger problems affecting our country. I don’t disagree that it should be a focus on the long list of things that need to get fixed in this country but it is not at the top of the totem pole of most importance. I’m not saying that this isn’t a problem because social inequality is a big deal and it should be fixed but we’re not going to be able to fix it unless everyone in America suddenly realizes that they should just be accepting of everyone. That is something that takes time; it is a process. So I can’t say that I disagree with the people voting for Sanders because social inequality is a thing that needs to be fixed but it shouldn’t be the main focus. I also can’t say that I disagree with people voting for Trump. Trump knows money he just doesn’t know equality or really how to run the country.

·      Twitter
I was scrolling through posts on Twitter to see what I could find on Gen Z. I came across this girl named Jessica Cassidy, a millennial (or the generation before Gen Z). She had written a letter to us Gen Z-ers telling us how much she dislikes us and some of her points make sense. She mentioned how much “power and influence” we have than any other generation. And she says, so far, we are using it wrong but that we can change that and use our power to make a difference instead of just posting selfies and pointless videos. We could post a video that can make a change or “make becoming ”unplugged”, even for a short while, trendy.” I agree with her. Many of us Gen Z-ers don’t use technology to its full potential. We could make a change with the power that we hold right in our hands or, at least, we can try. We could post pictures of the amazing places we’ve been or an act of kindness instead of pointless selfies with a pointless description or no description at all. Cassidy called out generation narcissistic and entitled. I mostly agree with that. We are a very narcissistic generation but I don’t necessarily think that we are entitled. We may be selfish and want a lot of things but we sure as hell work to get those things. Many kids these days are on their own completely separate from their parents, having to pay for their own things. I know friends who are paying for their insurance and for college right now.

·      Tumblr
Tumblr is slowly getting more popular. It is the social media network that actually has people on it that care about the world and not just selfies so getting opinions from tumblr wasn’t too hard. Pretty much every post was from someone within the population of Generation Z, defending their generation. Someone with the name scarletwitches posted on Tumbl, specifically about how unfairly older generations are looking at Gen Z. She/ He says, “This is different because unlike other generations before us, we are not at one, but at many turning points in history.” He/ She then goes into the use of technology and how our world has never been such a globalized community. He/ She then mentions how our generation will be facing more threats to humankind than have ever existed in one time period before; environmental issues, terrorism, and the global economy. I agree with all of this. We are a generation that has many problems we will have to face in the future. We are a completely new generation even though some label Gen Z as “The Millennials 2.0”, we are far from similar to the Millennials.

     These are only a few examples from social media. I will pull much more once I’ve furthered my research. As for whether or not the other articles will agree, I think Williams and Elmore will certainly agree with the Tumblr post but disagree with parts from Jessica Cassidy’s letter on Twitter. I don’t know how these two would feel about the Whisper post though. They don’t put much in either of their articles about politics. As for Lance Looper, I think he’d agree with both the Tumblr post and the Twitter post. Probably more the twitter post from Cassidy because he, too, believes that Gen Z has a lot of power and the resources to make a change. But Looper also realizes all the challenges Gen Z will face in the future so, in this way, he agrees with the Tumblr post.

New Questions:

·      What are more political views from all generations?

·      What do older generations think of Gen Z?

·      What does Gen Z think of Gen Z?

·      What is the more prominent issue with Gen Z right now: social, technological, political, or economic?

I am going to look at more posts on social media about Gen Z and try to find a book on Gen Z. And then I’m going to begin writing my paper and see where that takes me.

Answers:

·      Gen Z is slowly making their way in the world.

·      Gen Z is very intelligent but also very opinionated and that can be blinding sometimes.

·      Gen Z is going to have a lot of problems to face in the near future.

Asha Hopton Source 4

Question: How society can change this negative influence on reality tv and it's affect on women. What steps are necessary to really change the way we expect reality shows to be? 

Citation: Jost, Kenneth. "Indecency on Television." CQ Researcher 9 Nov. 2012: 965-88. Web. 9 Oct. 2015.

My next question is how can society change this negative influence on reality tv and it's affect on women and what steps are necessary to really change the way we expect reality shows to be? My first thoughts on this question were that we as a generation need to start expecting more out of what we encounter. I feel that we need to conscious of what programs have substance and can make a positive influence on our behavior, and to be able to recognize what is bad for us. Women in particulate seem to be so easily influenced as well as one to let media have such an impact on their behavior, they really need to be able to differentiate between what is real in reality TV and what harms them. 

This source I picked out talks about the change in cable television. It doesn't really focus on reality television in particular. It says how television is becoming more censored and how it is changing it's dynamic, escaping extreme vulgarity and too much sex display (Jost). This source makes me want to really rework my question because it's not really being answered, even compared to the other sources I've searched. 

Compared to my other source, I feel the previous one would have answered this question a lot better. I think implementing shows such as "I Am Cait" and also shows that are very positive and uplifting like "Extreme Makeover" would change the outlook on reality television a lot. If shows were created for entertainment why not be a positive entertainment. A step to change the negative influence would be to stop creating shows that have unrealistic image of women, and that stops over glamorizing and sexualizing them.

After researching these sources, I feel as though I need to change my initial thesis statements. This is because I continue to veer away from the question at hand and my tends to look subpar of what it could be. 

Madison Daniels Source 4

How is racism handled on college campuses? How is peer intervention done and is it effective?

Dalton, Jon C. Racism on Campus: Confronting Racial Bias through Peer Interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Print.

Racial bias and ethnic hostility on college campuses is at an all time high since the 1980s. Bias related events occur very often on college campuses and they receive widespread attention from the media. These events are not new historically, and are influenced by a number of factors. Each college campus has its own culture in which whites are almost always the majority compared to other ethnicities. Different racial groups organize themselves, creating a space for them to discuss, vent, and share things about the culture that they share. Racial interaction occurs, but the racial groups are "voluntary separate." It was discussed that some of the college programs could use more diversity. A theoretical model was used to analyze student's behaviors and experiences in relation to their background and entrance into college. This is significant because "differences in students experiences may contribute to conflict and misunderstanding..." Ways to promote diversity on campus like peer training strategies, were stated with their theories and methodologies. Campus diversity models and racial identity models are key in the conversation of diversity at universities. Evaluating peer interventions is also important to see if the methodologies practiced and the diversity training were in any way successful. 

This source is going to be crucial to my overall thesis question (Why does racism persist on college campuses?) because it addresses how racial issues have been addressed in the past and how it needs to be handled now. This source changed my thinking because I wasn't aware of specific issues that cause racism and how these issues can be addressed. It gave me a bigger picture of what's actually going on socially on college campuses. I agree with the source on its explanations for how racial issues exist among groups of students, but I don't agree that peer interventions can fix everything. Since this book was written in the 90s, some of the info of how to approach racial situations may need to be updated, especially after significant race-based events that occurred in 2014. This source does answer most of the components of the questions for this blog post. 

This source can ultimately respond to all of the other sources because the sources are very related in nature. It can be in discussion with "The Impact of "Colorblind" Ideologies on Students of Color: Intergroup Relations at a Predominantly White University," (Source 3)  because they both touch on the topics of how racial groups interact with each other when attending universities where they are the minority. This source can also converse with "College Students' Perceptions of Equal Opportunity for African Americans and Race-Based Policy: Do Diversity Requirements Make a Difference." (Source 1) because the topic of diversity education is truly positive for both professors and students. 

This source has led me towards a list of a lot information relates to race relations. My research question may change to focus on how racism persists on college campuses, rather than why, since statistical information can't always prove the truth. As far as looking at Mizzou specifically, the incident that happened with MSA President Payton Head and the other recent racially motivated protests could be used as examining a case study of racism that is very much present at a university like ours. My research needs now to gather all the information that was from news articles  today. 

-Do I still think that racism is persistent on college campuses today in this way? 

-How do school leaders deal with such racism if it breaks out?

-How is racism handled by modern media? 

-How does social media fuel the conversations about race?

Jovon Harrison source 4

Question: Do the benefits of social media out weigh the negatives? and vice versa?

 Permalink: http://laurel.lso.missouri.edu/record=b10793825~S1

This book gives various perspectives on social media and how it has changed the way we communicate. It also gives reasons of how social media makes our lives better by improving our network connections, expanding our horizons, making communication more simple, and etc. It also gives ways to which social media can negatively impact our society. It explains how it has changed our way of thinking and viewing certain things, violates our privacy and trust, and how it can lead to physical and mental harm. It gives touches on the benefits and also the negatives.

Daniel Holmes - Source 4

Question I am researching for this journal entry: Is Political Correctness effective on college campuses in the U.S.?

Works Cited:

Lawler, Peter Augustine. "Political Correctness And The End Of History." College Teaching 44.1 (1996): 20. Teacher Reference Center. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.

• This article states that the politically correct believe that they know everything in regards to justice, and that what they know is the entirety of higher education. Education at the higher level is concerned with issues of race, class, and gender. The study of history is based on bringing up all of these issues and applying them to today’s life. The politically correct think they’re trying to perfect societies’ universality and homogeneity. There is a large intolerance for criticism in regards to political correctness. Any attempt to challenge or criticize a view or belief is met with claims of racism, sexism, or homophobia. They are not open in any way to any kinds of criticism.
• This source has helped me look deeper into the ideology of political correctness and get a better feel for it. I do feel like there is some truth to this source in regards to the opposition being slapped with certain labels based on their views, because there absolutely are racist/sexist/homophobic people out there as well. This source has helped me think about my question a little more, and potentially lead to a change in the research question. 
•  In response to my other sources, this source will be the backbone in explaining the political correct ideology. There is a lot of good information to be found in this source that will spark a good conversation between the other sources. There all still a lot of differences in these sources that can bring different facts to the table and introduce new points of discussion.
•    This source has prompted me to research further into how the politically correct ideology is actually represented on college campuses in the U.S. I will also look to see if there are regional differences in regards to the amount of influence political correctness has on different campuses. I have yet to form any new questions for this research, but I do believe there are still better questions to be asking.

Matt Sommer Source 4

Thesis: What framework is needed for the development of renewable energies and how can policies for renewable energy instead of fossil-fuel be adopted by the government.



Summary:

 For my last source I chose the book "Scenarios for a Future Electricity Supply" by Gregor Czisch. In his book he has chapters over all of the different types of renewable energy and goes into great detail how they can be implemented to supply Europe with renewable energy. The chapter I chose to focus on is titled "Electricity supply scenarios in various technical  and political contexts" where he plays out several different scenarios dealing with renewable energy and fossil-fuel programs along with the amount of consumption. Some of his key findings in these scenarios were that renewable energy can be produced at a low cost and in the long term cheaper than electricity today, also renewable energy allows for more planning and more configuration leeway. He also states that with non weather dependent sources such as hydro power it allows for demand-oriented electricity supply. Czisch goes in to conclude that he believes that in his research there is sufficient evidence to say that it is entirely possible to create a supply system based on renewable energies. Furthermore that over time as fossil-fuels become more expensive renewable energy will only get cheaper.

Think:

 Going in to reading these chapters I had the idea that in order to achieve a sufficient renewable energy supply it would be very complex and take a very long time to achieve. However, after reading this source it has changed my view to agreeing with Czisch in that renewable energy is an affordable and achievable advancement that will not only solve the problem of a depleting fossil-fuel supply but also keeping the environment cleaner. The only barrier preventing this is politicians pushing through pro fossil-fuel policies.

Synthesize:

 As compared to my other sources this one argues that renewable energy can be achieved faster than many think. In my last source Lilliestam & Patt say that in order to build this renewable energy system there is a significant amount of framework needed before we can even begin to produce it. On the other hand Czisch argues that there is not that much framework needed as a lot of current electricity technology can still be utilized and re purposed with renewable energy. Another one of my sources, written by Elham Naeimi, states that there are many positive effects that renewable energy brings with the environment and economy. In this book Czisch would agree with Naeimi, he argues that even though in the beginning renewable energy will be slightly more expensive over time it will drop below current electricity prices.

Question and Plan:

 This source has not altered my thinking in a major way as did with some of my previous sources. However it has backed up a lot of what I have already found and gave a broader look at the integration of renewable energy into our current system. This being said I believe this book has answered my thesis for this blog. I wanted to know what framework was needed and how the government could move in the right direction to implement this framework. After reading I have realized that most of the framework is actually already there with our current use of HVDC or high voltage direct currents.

Shannon Sankey Source 4

What makes a corporation a person?

• Ripken, Susanna K. "Corporations are People Too: A Multi-Dimensional Approach to the Corporate Personhood Puzzle." Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law15.1 (2009): 97. Web.

This article proposes an argument that shows how and why corporations should be considered as people. This article poses two different sides of the argument, some say that a corporation is a legal entity that fail and succeed on their own accord. The other side of the argument says that a corporation is more than just a legal entity, it is all the people that work for the corporation and invest their time and money into them. The argument is that a corporation was created by people through a mutual agreement. The corporation can not actually act or speak, but the people who make up the corporation can and without them the corporation would not exist. But the article then brings up a conversations as it explains that people can come and go from a corporation without it affecting its efficiency and work, they claim that this make corporations more than a person and shouldn't be granted the same rights. But the argument for corporate personhood is that they represent the people that work for them and they are meant to represent the public good, because of this they should have all of the rights extended to them.

This article brings up a lot of interesting points and helps me put it into conversation with my other articles. The arguments for and against corporate personhood can be put into stasis with each other, but I don't have any answers to my previous questions about how corporate personhood affects politics.  Honestly, I have no idea where this paper is going for me. I started out with corporate personhood that effects religion and has first amendment rights, then I move onto corporate lobbying and how first amendment rights affect politics concerning corporations. Now I am back to the pros and cons of corporations having personhood.

Putting this into conversation with my other articles would look something like explaining how this is the argument for corporate personhood and my other articles would be why corporations should not be considered people. I would also put this into conversation with my last article explaining why corporations would want to be involved with politics. 

I have to find a question for my thesis statement, I really have no idea what I am trying to argue here. 

Christopher Travis Source 4

Question: How has the increase of ‘helicopter parenting’ affected college-aged students’ well-being?

Works Cited:

Peebles, M. Ellen.  “The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking up the Work Place.” Harvard Business Review. 38. n.p.: Harvard Business School Publication Corp., 2008. Business Source Premier. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.

Schiffrin, Holly.  “Helping or Hovering? The Effects of Helicopter Parenting on College Students’ Well-Being.” Journal of Child & Family Studies 23.3 (2014): 548-557. Academic Search Complete. Web. 7 Oct 2015.

“The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking up the Work Place” by Ron Alsop does a thorough job defining the millennial generation.  They are born between 1980 and 2001 and go by a variety of different names.  These include Generation Y, Generation Next and the Trophy Kids.  Alsop explains that this generation has experience emotional security with their families even though they have lived through tragedies like the September 11^th terrorist attacks, school shootings, and Hurricane Katrina.  Yet they remain full of hope and ambitions for their future.  The Trophy Kids have both strengths and weaknesses.  They strive in a team setting, and are excellent multitaskers.  However they suffer from stress, anxiety, sleep deprivation and this leads them to harmful activities like binge drinking and sexual promiscuity.  The millennials are often seen as conceited and entitled by other generations.  The Trophy Kids are referred to as the “stay-at-home generation” by the market research firm Synovate because of their strong reliance on assistance from their parents.  This has increased recently due to the increase of technology and the ease of communication.  The article even describes the cell phone as a “new high-tech umbilical cord”.  The article points out many negative aspects of the millennials, but it’s not all bad.  They explain how they are an optimistic and philanthropic generation with a strong sense of social responsibility.  They want to make positive change in the world. 

This article has reaffirmed my previous conclusion that this question has many answers.  It’s very difficult to determine whether the effects of hovering parents are more positive or negative.  Although this generation tends to suffer from more stress and anxiety they are optimistic for the future and strive to make a difference.  Does this positive outlook and social responsibility outweigh the negatives?  If the question concerned well-being, than it could be said that anxiety and parental dependence would be negatively effecting that child’s well-being.  On the other hand, it could be said that their positive outlook is attributing to a healthy well-being.  Especially with all the pessimism that has plagued mankind in the past.  While this question doesn’t have on solid answer, it is a question worth discussing.  The next generation’s parents need to know whether or not helicopter parenting is an effective method if should they change their ways in order to better future generations. 

I could put this article in conversation with my previously researched articles with ease.  All four agree that the increase in hovering parents has led to both positive and negative outcomes.  However, they all explain it in different ways.  “Helping or Hovering?” agrees with “The Trophy Kids Grow Up” that the increase of parental supervision and control has strongly effected the Millennial Generation’s well-being.  However they have different reasons why.  “Helping or Hovering” explains that independent choice, confidence, and loving relationships are crucial for a child’s well-being.  Over parenting has caused children to feel less independent and confident in their own decisions, however they have closer relationships with family.  “The Trophy Kids Grow Up” agrees their relationships are closer and less independent, however they argue that the millennial’s are arrogant and over optimistic.  It seems like both articles have valid points, but it seems that the parent’s intent determines whether these kids will be arrogant or less confident.  I think that if a parent is constantly reassuring their kid of their greatness while being over-involved, it will cause that kid to be arrogant and unrealistically optimistic.  However if the over-involved parent controls this child without reassuring them of their abilities, the child will assume that their opinion either doesn’t matter or isn’t good enough. 

            My question hasn’t changed too much since my last journal.  I know now the increase of technology has definitely increased parental supervision and thus increased the effect of hovering parents.  I am still left wondering if there are more examples of these effects, and whether not the over-all effect is positive/negative.  This technological increase has mostly effected the Millennial Generation’s lives, since they have lived through this increase in technology.  Many of these kids are college aged students, so I will keep my focus on this group.  The question that is left to answer is:  Is there a way to prove that the negative/positive effects outweigh the other?  I will continue to look for different sources that explain what the effects of helicopter parenting are and why.  

Samuel Bettlach- Source 4

A)    This fourth blog post is leading me down my whole definition of what conservation is really meaning in this paper.  Conservation I believe can be more then just the animal that is being hunted.  This is stepping into a whole new idea, I would like to investigate hunting as a means of attaining meat and contrasting this with meat coming from a farmed cow, pig, or chicken.  I would like to see what hunting does and can do, instead of factory farming.

B)    Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "Abstract." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, May 2002. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

Summarize:

This article is much different then some of the other articles that I have used.  There is no real tie specifically into hunting within this article.  The article goes about talking about the problems and issues that surround industrialized farming.  The sustainability of farming is put into question, seeing that fertilizers and other harmful items to the environment are used in many farming practices.  The article then mentions and hits on points of how land, water, and biodiversity are mentioned as subtopics within the article.  The one subtopic that seems to be the most pertinent to my total thesis is when the article brings in a piece on industrial animal production.  The other pieces are important to get background on farming principles, but animal production is where the connection with hunting lies.  The animal production in farming is commonly associated with factory farming where animals are crowded onto small pieces of land where they produce an exorbitant amount of waste.  The article claims, “5 tons of animal waste for every U.S. citizen”.  In order for continual farming in these small concentrated areas, many farming practices have needed to be implemented. The implementation of slatted floors can result in skeletal deformation of animals.  Also, these floors are slatted to allow manure to be easily cleaned from stalls, but this manure just builds up and becomes an extreme hazard to the environment.  The article continues on about other forms of farming and its downfalls.  Diseases and harm to the humans that consume the produced meat and agriculture products are noted.  Finally, we get a notion from the writers that something must be done as a sustainable method for these problems in industrial farming. 

Think:

Many new ideas started spinning in my head while reading this article.  I think the biggest thing is the idea that hunting can be a viable solution for many over meat production. Specifically, I believe that this article is very enlightening on the very problems that are occurring on these industrialized farms.  I do not believe that all production of animal meats are done poorly.  Out there, there are farms and places that farm crops and livestock appropriately and produces meats in the right way.  I think there is little justification to how some of these animals are farmed.  Not only the treatment of these animals, but their environmental impact is a huge burden at times.  Form this article, and my common knowledge, there really doesn’t seem to be that many pluses to large animal farming, besides cheap meat.  The environment is being hurt through the large waste dumps of these farmed animals, and a reduction of animal production could aid in solving this problem.  Similarly, there are diet and disease problems with consuming some of the meats in our supermarkets.  This source makes me think about hunting as a conservation method for the environment and human conservation in these same ways.    

Synthesize:

This source just puts a lot of ideas in my head about the difference between hunting and animal farming.  Animal farming can be a real hurt to the environment and at times even humans.  So hunting can be brought into this conversation.  Hunting for meat instead of consuming meats from a grocery store can do many good things?  Obviously there are the potential problems with hunting that I have gone into a bit of detail in the last posts about.  The best connection to other sources I have read isn’t direct, but there are some shared ideas.  Hunting to save animal populations, hunting a wild animal can be safety and protect animals that are being farmed also.  There is a tradeoff here that I think needs to have light shed on it.  Socioeconomics of hunting is also a place where this article can tie in.  The cost of meats in stores, is in many statists that I have seen, are much higher then that of meat that has been processed from an animal that a hunter has harvested.  The socioeconomics of hunting, it effects the community, in specific in this instance, the people.  The hunters can really save money, and this money saved could then be put back into animal and habitat conservation.  It might be a long trail to follow, but I think it is logical. 

Question and Plan:

So there is potential for environmental problems with hunting, and problems with much of the meat that we get from the grocery store.  Where does this leave us?  I think that is where I sit, I really am just on the fence about whether hunting for meat or animal production is the best.  After my research so far, it is hard for me to say if hunting meats is better then going to the grocery store.  One thing that I do think I get, is that hunting brings in safer natural meats.  There are obvious questions still looming about this subtopic like is an increase in hunting really going to change the practices of the large industrialized farms?  There are some negatives here, that I think could be neutralized with hunting, but I don’t know if that really gives me an answer fully about hunting as a conservation method.  It can potentially conserve domestic farm animals and help the environment, so is that all I am looking to see? This question needs to be placed into more connection with y other subtopics to see all the possibilities.