This is Your Brain on Music: Chapters 5-8

These chapters focus mainly on how music effects our behavior and how different types of music do different things. It also still continues to give information considered to be only things musicians would know in order to enhance logical appeal. The book tends to talk about very similar things, but is able to change things around so it appears to be like a lot more.

These chapters also talk about how music is put into different categories known as genres. The author asks how we differentiate between different genres and makes a good point how some defining characteristics of some genres go into other as well. An example was how heavy metal relies on distored guitars, yet The Carpenters used distortion in one of their songs and they would NEVER be considered metal. And how Led Zeppelin used a lot of acoustic instruments yet are considered by many to be the fathers of metal. He makes some good points.

This is Your Brain on Music: Chapters 1-4

The book “This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession” by Daniel J. Levitin is an ok one at this point. The first chapter was spent talking about what music is which greatly added to the author’s logical appeal as did chapter two. Both give basics of music that are known mostly to musicians and not the listeners. The intention is to get everyone on a near level playing field and open the music vocabulary to everyone, not just musicians. That would make his audience absolutely everyone and anyone who enjoys music. He wants to get to musicians so they can better understand the deeper effects of what they do and the music effects them. He also wants people who only listen to music to feel more as if they understand what they are listening to. These chapters also add to his emotional appeal because it connects to the reader. It allows them to think of how they use music in their daily lives and how it actually effects them.

Chapters 2 through 4 go more into the actual science behind music and timing and a little bit of theory. It also explains in brief why we enjoy what we do and what we expect when we listen to music. The author uses a lot of comparisons to other types of music in order to broaden the specific topic he is talking about at the moment.

Bomber on Flight to Detroit

The article “Britain Says it Passed Airliner Suspect Data to U.S.” from foxnews.com, information is given about terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and how the information about him was passed around. Britain passed the info about Abdulmutallab’s association with radical groups along to the U.S. but was not considered a threat by our government, so no high risk tags were put on him. All of the information was given, but no action was taken to try to prevent any danger from happening. Luckily his explosive failed to go off.

The tone of this article seemed to be anger. Anger at the U.S. government and the Obama administration for taking the threat of terrorism so lightly. The actually author of the story is not given. Abdulmutallab had be studying under radical Islamists and his own father had tried to warn the government about him for fear of how radical he had become. The audience is the American public, from both the left and right. The purpose seems to be to put more anger into the Conservatives about how badly things are being run and to try and get the Liberals to stop living in their fantasy world and realize that there is real danger out there. And a lot of it is toward our country.

Vocab powerpoint

Flippin flippant powerpoint

Cancer Death Rates Decline in U.S.

The article “Study: U.S. Cancer Death Rates Declining; Colon Cancer Deaths Set to Make Dramatic Drop” from foxnews.com gives some of the best hope in the current age. Cancer death rates have been declining rapidly since the 1990′s, a 20% drop actually. And even better now, predictions are being made that the death rate will be cut in half by 2020 from what it was in 2000. The problem is that obesity rates are rising which cause higher risk of cancer among those who are obese. But adult smoking rates have been down which cuts down lung cancer.

The author (unnamed) does an excellent job of giving the information. The tone is rather optimistic which is something we need more of. The logical appeal includes opinions and data from multiple doctors in different specific fields. The emotional appeal hits hard to anyone who has been effected by cancer in anyway, be it them or a friend or family member. It gets to me emotionally because it mentions the cancer my dad has and talks about how it’s survival rates are going up substantially. He has been good ever since the initial run in with it and we don’t worry anymore, but it’s just nice to have that information.

The author makes sure to mention that this predictions are based largely on assumptions which also adds to the logical appeal because it puts a sense of reality to it. Overall, the US is doing wonderful to raise the cancer survival rate.

For more info on cancer survival rates go here: http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/health/2009/08/14/surviving-cancer

Stem Cells Used to Create Human Skin by the French (it always is)

The article “French Scientists Create Human Skin Using Stem Cells”, foxnews.com (who appears to be the author because one is not listed) tells how some French scientists were able to do just as the title says. It usually takes a couple weeks for a burn patient to receive a skin graft and until they do they are at serious risk for infection. If I understand what it is saying correctly, the cells serve merely as a temporary cover for the burns, but after 12 weeks develop into actual human skin.

The author(s) do ok with this article, but it could be better. It’s never very in depth but that may be only because it is so new. It gives only the information on the procedure and does nothing to appeal to the ethics of using stem cells. The process appears to be a good thing and very effective, but it has its problems.

I don’t believe that stem cells should be used for such things because those cells should have been a baby. And if you don’t believe me, I invite you to explain how those cells could form into human skin. If they can do such a thing, that makes them human in my book.

Marc Peschanski, research director at the institute I-Stem

What Really Happens at Day Care

In the article “Kids Watching Hours of TV at Home Day Care” found on foxnews.com, the author talks about a study conducted recently that show children in home daycares watch as much as two hours of TV a day while at the day care. This information was gathered via telephone surveys conducted in Michigan, Washington, Florida, and Massachusetts. Dimitir Christakis, the doctor in charge of the survey, believes that the actually amout of time was more and the figures were not reported truthfully. The doctor says this could be a great problem for the learning and social abilities of children if they are being exposed to so much TV at such a young age.

This article was written by Associated Press, so I feel that the authors did an alright job of reporting this information. They actually did a rather good job, I just don’t agree with what is being said. The audience is most obviously parents. The authors are trying to give parents as much information as possible about what is happening with their kids. The subject is how time is being spent with kids in daycares and how good it is for them. The tone seems to be a little aggrivated that this kind of thing is happening.

I feel that this is being blown out of proportion. My old neighbor runs a home daycare and I used to work for her. The only time the TV was on was during nap time so that she could watch her show while the children slept. People tend to take data too far in order to try to swing anything in their direction. The article also says that children under 2 should not watch TV at all, which I think is ridiculous. Putting on the right program is the real issue. It’s quality, not quantity. And sometimes it doesn’t matter if the children are watching TV. Sometimes home daycare is all people can afford.

Marijuana Cafe

In the article “First Marijuana Cafe Opens in Oregon” on Foxnews.com, information is given on the first and only marijuana cafe in America. It’s actual name is the Cannabis Cafe and it is in Portland Oregon. It is not just some hole in the wall place where anyone can go to smoke pot though, it only gives it to people who are  allowed legal medical marijuana and they can smoke it there as long as they are out of public view. Members pay $25 a month and actually receive the marijuana for free over the counter. The cafe was created about a month after the Obama administration asked law enforcement to not prosecute those who use medical marijuana.

The actually author is not named, but I believe they do a good job with this article. It is purely informative and takes no stance on the legalization of marijuana or anything about it which, to me, enhances it’s ethical appeal. It allows you to see one side of the story, but you are still free to easily think your own way. The audience appears to be supporters of the legalization of the drug. It may be to give them hope or inspiration to open such cafes of their own.

I personally believe that medical marijuana should be allowed, but that’s it. If we are working towards a smoke free country, it seems legalizing marijuana would be a huge step backwards.

The fast food battle

http://www.newsweek.com/id/220300

There have been ongoing problems with people and fast food. Every health organization is against it and wants to change them. McDonalds is taking a stand. They have been doing the same thing for years, making delicious food that is cheap. People who eat there don’t go because they want to lose weight. They go because they want a fast meal that’s cheap and tastes good. People need to take responsibility for themselves and realize that they’re not eating food that will help if you have a weight problem. This guy has the right idea. Let’s not bash fast food, let’s enjoy it and leave it be.

The gay marriage issue

There will now be a census to count the number of married gay couples within the United States. I don’t see the problem here or why anyone would oppose it, but I also don’t see why it’s necessary. I’m gonna say this, I am quite Conservative. I go by what I think to be right, which almost always ends up that way. But with gay marriage, I am more liberal. Quite honestly, I just don’t care. I believe that whatever you do sexually in your own homes and bedrooms is your business and the government has no right to interfere. I don’t understand how someone can be gay and I am very confused by how it has grown so much. It used to be something looked down upon by all, but now it seems to be lifted up and praised. I understand that we need to change with the times, but we’re going too far. If you’re gay, be gay. But don’t force it on me. Don’t tell me I should be like you. It’s quite funny when a gay person says something along the lines of “everyone should be like me!”. I like to respond by asking how the next generation will come about. I don’t go out of my way to support gay people, but I’m not against them in any way. It doesn’t matter what you are to me. I’m all for gay rights, anti-discrimination, yeah sure. That’s fine and dandy. But if they get all their rights, the parades better stop. I hate gay pride parades because if there was a straight pride parade that would be terrible and offensive. When it comes to marriage, I don’t believe the state should have any say in who gets married. I personally believe it should be between a man and a woman, but if a gay couple can find a church that will marry them, I say go for it. Marriage is a religious tradition, not a governmental one. It should be kept that way. Finding a church to marry them may be difficult, but if they can do it good for them. But if they’re gonna be married, they better be taxed exactly the same as straight married couples. No breaks for anyone.