Fictional Facts

                   We are in a time of great concern, where people seem to lack the ability to communicate and at least listen to the other side. This can be seen in a variety of events, some of which, are extremely shocking. Everyday words such as the "Greenhouse Effect", "Global Warming", and "Irreversible Pollution" are thrown around, but how many people actually understand what they mean? It seems like people are simply incorporating scientific words to bolster their own credibility. This, however, leads to great misconceptions and great ignorance. Each day, we continue to lack the understanding of what exactly goes on in our environment and how we impact it so.

                    In recent times we've seen the biggest hit to the government-side of resources, in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With the introduction of the newest head to the EPA, Scott Pruitt has lead the office for less than a month before declaring statements that challenge years of research. His claim that states that carbon dioxide "is not a primary contributor to the global warming" goes against what the scientific community of heads of research such as NASA and NOAA have upheld for decades. In fact, his statement contradicts what is on the EPA's on webpage: "Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change." In essence, Pruitt's statement attempts to ignore the very basis that geologists and oceanographers have studied, researched, and shown everywhere. This statement goes against what climate experts and weather researchers have noted since the early twentieth century. Yet what will some people do? Believe him. Not because he is right. Not because he is smart. But because these people refuse to or or lack the ability to comprehend simple facts and signs that would hurt their current lifestyle. Any attempt at change is attack on themselves. Thus, we continue to ignore the facts that are around us; the very signs of life that tell us otherwise.
                  

"So you entered the age of irony, and the strange double life you've been leading with the world ever since."

(Dihydrogen Monoxide = H2O)

Unmarked Understanding

               I found the piece "There is No Unmarked Woman" by Deobrah Tannen intriguing for multiple reasons. I, personally don't ever care too much about my clothing or my hairstyle as long as it looked somewhat "acceptable" it was okay to me. To me I have a standard of what I wear to school and I don't wear anything special ever. Women, on the other hand, seem to have an endless variety of clothing to choose from and while I used to be jealous of such a thing, I now think about the consequences that it can play. How it can define and possibly "diminish her as a person" depending on the style and quality of the clothing. How it causes there to be no "unmarked" woman, no standard to follow. But, besides all of this, how she develops her argument throughout the essay, in fact, less than half the time is spent on clothing aspects. Most of it, however, is supported by factual/objective evidence that slowly leads into her final claim/thesis about how society continues to support these marked and unmarked roles. This comparison to other stuff besides clothing is extremely powerful because it brings up the theme of universality; how the marked and unmarked applies to everything, even in our everyday language whether we realize it or not. People, however, are unaccepting and according to Tannen, try to label her as a feminist or a male-basher. The end discussion about how she herself is labeled and the deconstruction of those words are used serve to highlight her own intelligence and the ignorance of society. By including the anecdote about the man who clearly wasn't rational in his argument about calling her a male-basher, Tannen makes huge gains both logically and emotionally by refuting the obviously flawed claim and reinstating her own. 

"To say anything about women and men without marking oneself as either feminist or anti-feminist, male-basher or apologist for men seems as impossible for a women as trying to get dressed in the morning without inviting interpretations of her character."