Reponse post 2

I believe Alyssa brought up a really important issue in her post "Asthma in Children". She discussed how minority children have a greater risk of dying from asthma than a white child. This is due to lack of healthcare, and environmental injustice (polluting factories not dispersed evenly, only in minority and low income communities). Before reading her post, this issue was something that never crossed my mind and I agree with Alyssa that these things need to be discussed and changed. I also learned from her post that this issue is also due in part to genetics. It makes you wonder why certain diseases are more likely for certain types of people compared to others. In response to her blog she also brought up important issues concerning our nations health care system. I am not super familiar with this topic but know it is extremely hard for certain people to obtain health care. Seeing that health care is a necessary part to staying healthy it makes me upset that it is not open to everyone.

I do not have asthma so this article was also informative for me because I did not know much about the disease. Statistics like this need to change, and I'm glad people such as Alyssa are spreading the word. If people are not invovled issues will never be changed for the better.

Technorati search engine

The search engine Technorati lets one search for blogs and blog related content. I used it to discover blogs concerning my informative paper topic, deforestation. The author of the blog I found is a man named Ronnie Cummins. He has been posting on this site at least once a month since December of 2009. The reason I chose this particular site was because I believed the information that it provided, and the author is a reliable source. Ronnie Cummins is the founder/director of the organic consumers organization. His organization is dedicated to sustainable agriculture, and national and global campaigns working towards this issue. The author utilizes hyperlinks to other websites in his posts and utilizes pictures to illustrate his point.

When I used this search engine to find a specific blog post related to deforestation I discovered one written by Gordon Brown, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom. This post came from the blog “The Huffington Post”, and was written October 10 of this year. It discussed climate change, and the effects deforestation has on this ever present issue in today’s society. This post differs from my research paper because it takes a more persuasive attitude. The author is for new low-carbon technologies and uses statistics to prove his point rather than just present information. I also feel like because Brown is so familiar with politics and world issues he has a right to argue his point. In other words he is an expert on the topic and is educated, so I feel more inclined to believe him. In my persuasive paper I will have to complete more research than Brown did due to the fact I will be unfamiliar with my topic.

All in all, the search engine Technorati was very helpful and easy to use. This was the first time I have ever explored the website and did not encounter any issues with it.

Speech evaluation

During my demonsrative speech I discussed, and attempted to teach others the beginning positions of ballet. There were some things about my speech I felt confident about, and other things I believe that needed a lot of improvement. First I will start with what I feel needs to be improved upon for next time. I think I could have projected my voice slightly better (it may have been hard for people to hear me). Also My time management was not so fantastic. I was around a minute under which is a pretty good chunk of time. Finally I feel as though after watching my speech on video that I could have made eye contact with more people, and not the floor. What I feel went really well during my speech was demonstrating something that probably not alot of people knew much about. I feel as though it was educational, and interesting. I also feel that I had well planned out visual aids (pictures of myself in different positions, and pointe shoes). One thing that I struggled with personally was the fact that because my speech was on the first day, I did not really know what to expect. I hope next time I will not be as nervous, and feel slightly more confident! However, all in all I feel as though I did a good job.

Response blog

I agree with Madison's point of view on the topic of organ sales. she believes no one should be able to put a price on a life. She brought up a different perspective that I did not think about. The fact that the people recieving the organs would have to purchase them in an auction type setting. This would in turn create internal competition among the sick, instead of the current list (top priority recieves the organs). The people who may be in more need for the organs may not recieve them due to money issues. However the issue of having rights over your body still come up. Even though this is ethically/ morally wrong, how can someone tell another what to do with their own bodies? Whether to legalize organ selling or organ purchasing remains a unknown. Whatever happens it will create controversy and I still think after reading a different blog that both sides have valid points. However, Madison, to me, proves that being morally responsible is a better choice than being greedy(money hungry). Everyone will have different opinions on the topic and I don't think there is really a right answer. Whether one looks at Madisons perspective, my own, or the author of the required article, different and valid points will pop up. They all have valid points.

Organs For Sale?

In most countries it is illegal to sell your organs, but legal to donate them to the sick and dying. Should people be allowed to sell their own organs if it is what they desire? In my opinion a person should have legal rights over their own body. However, your organs are obviously an important aspect to a healthy life. I understand the reason why someone would want money for giving up something inside of their body, but I don't know if I agree with giving up your organ for the sole purpose of receiving a profit. Giving up your organs should be to benefit another human being, not your pocket book. Again though this choice is up to the individual, and probably should not be decided upon by the government. Even if the original reason for selling an organ is selfish, it would lead to benificiary elements (eventually ending up inside a sick person).
After reading the BBC news editorial by Martin Wilkinson I realized he had some pretty valid points. As I said above, I agree the benefits for the recipients would be worth it. If people did not have to wait as long on transplant lists, I am sure many lives would be saved. This unquestionably is a benefit. However, no matter how one looks at the situation, moral ethics come into play. Legalizing the organ market would create controversy. There is no way around that. People either have to decide if they have legal rights over what they do with their bodies, or if they want other people making that decision for them. Another point he brought up relates to what I discussed in the previous paragraph, the money issue. Would poor people be the most accepting of the new law because it would be a source of profit for them? Is that ethically okay?