Response to Jake Ninneman's technorati search

I found Jake’s post about his technorati search aimed at nutrition very interesting. After having just done my own post using technorati, it was interesting to see what other blogs about different topics might contain. What I found was that the types of blogs are basically the same. Looking at both of our blogs, I could see that my not only did many bloggers write between 15 and 30 blogs a month, but that many other bloggers also used a more direct and formal type of writing style. Also, after looking at the blogs that Jake posted, I could also see that many authors of these blogs usually feel like they are speaking to an audience that is well informed about the topic being researched. This was parallel with what I found on my blogs. On top of this, I also saw that many bloggers look at articles from newspapers and articles as well.

It was interesting to read the articles that Jake posted along with his blog. I really enjoyed the one about the benefits of fish and the studies found. A study in this link shed light on the fact that the omega 3 fats found in fish can actually decrease the occurrence of Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The other article that Jake posted was also a little out of ordinary due to its focus on flushing toxins found in different fast foods and processed foods out of your body in order to lose weight. Some of the other articles were interesting as well, but these did seem a little too unusual to actually be practical in everyday life.

All in all, I thought Jake’s post was pretty intriguing. I was very interested to see the similarities and hope that his next paper is a good one.

Technorati search (post below)

HERE ARE MY LINKS!!!!! I don't know why they didn't post.
Ecofriend:
http://www.ecofriend.org/
NEI Nuclear:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com

After looking at the NEI Nuclear Notes blog, I have noticed a few major differences that differ between this and my blog. First off, the blogger, Jim Slider, usually goes way more in depth in his topics. He usually uses links to organization websites in order to emphasize the points he tries to get across in the post. Looking at his history, though, I can see a lot of news articles and highly influenced by the writer and are one sided. Also, Slider usually posts at least 2 or 3 times a week, each of these being at least 500 words. However, the amount of posts due vary from the current amount per week to almost 15 or 20 posts a week throughout the blogs creation in 2005. This posts are also much more formal than the type of writing I usually use in my posts.

For my persuasive paper, I have decided to focus on the topic of biofuel. On this note, I looked at blog called Ecofriend as my second blog choice. After looking at some of the posts, although many are not mainly focused on biofuel, I have noticed a few differences in their writing style compared to what I am predicting my writing style will be like for the persuasive paper. The main difference this blog has is that since it is already focused on a biased audience, it doesn’t really need to do a lot of persuasion to convince the readers to swing a particular way. Also, since the blog is catering to a more educated audience, the posts do not do too much background info. This will definitely differ from my in depth paper that I will write for class later in the month.


Altogether, both these blogs differ from my writing method in their style and theme. But this is exactly why they are blogs and not papers.

selfevalutation on speech

After watching my own speech, I have realized a few faults. First of all, I heard myself using a lot of filler words in my speech. Words such as "like" or "ummm" took away from the purpose of my speech and really didn't help people understand what i was trying to get across. Also, I used my hands a lot when there wasn't really anything to be explained. This also made my speech less focused and concise. Other than these problems though, I do feel that my speech was overall well done. I got all my points across, gave the speech a purpose to the audience, made throwing a frisbee into a few easy steps, and got my speech done in the time limit. I feel like a 60-65 out of 75 would be a perfect score for this speech.

Response to Caroline bauer

After reading Caroline’s article, I see a slightly different perspective to an almost identical response of mine. In my response, I focus mainly on how people should be allowed to donate and what system should be set up. In Caroline’s response, however, she focuses on the stats that help prove her point that selling organs can be an effective way to meet people’s needs. I also liked her focus on how it doesn’t hurt anyone to sell organs once one has deceased. It was really interesting on her perspective that an organ is a gift that will last forever. I do have to agree with her statements on increasing supply, as it was discussed in the BBC article, as well. The idea that it all is beneficial for everyone in the market never occurred to me before I read this article. I never really thought that decreasing prices due to increasing the supply would assistance both the buyer and the seller; the buyer in that there will be a wider variety to choose from, and the seller in that they will be able to sell an organ that otherwise would have gone to waste in their death or the death of a loved one. Having 2 doctors as parents, I do have to agree with Caroline’s statements towards the end of her response that focuses on the benefit the doctor will receive of just being able to help people due to the huge increase in the supply of organs. Her almost spiritual view of “your body living a second time in the life of another” gave me a different viewpoint on the subject as well. All in all, I thought Caroline’s response was very intriguing and overall interesting.

Organs for sale? post

I believe that the matter of what to do with one’s own body parts is the right of the individual, not the right of the government. If someone wanted to sell their kidney, let them do it; they have to deal with the consequences in the end. I don’t understand what the big problem would be in the first place. People should be able to do what they want to their bodies, even if that means taking a part of it away.
Although I believe this, I do not think that we should just let people sell you their organs off the street. I am not discouraging it, however, I am just saying that I believe that there should be some organized way to do such a process. This system would not only need run by a large medical group, but will need to have background checks on donators for abnormal health issues, blood work done to show that one is healthy when they donate, and some legal connection to the organ trade. Selling of organs could also bring a whole new market on the table. Think of the possibility of trading organs not just nationally, but worldwide. Having the ability to ship a new kidney from England for a transplant in the united states seems like a far away probability, but just thinking of this can lead to its development.
We are a free country, letting our citizens do almost anything they want, when they want. We cannot let the government take away the right to be free on a moral issue. Although I do agree that some things need to be regulated, I do not believe that this means that the right should be stripped from people altogether.