Blog 5 - 2009 AP Prompt on Edward O. Wilson's Satire!

[Angelann Stephens]

The two passages below, both written by noted contemporary scientist Edward O. Wilson, appear in Wilson’s book The Future of Life (2002). In the passages, Wilson satirizes the language of two groups that hold opposing attitudes about environmentalism. Read each passage carefully. Then write a rhetorical paragraph in which you analyze how Wilson’s satire illustrates the unproductive nature of such discussions.  Please respond to at least one other person's blog, providing him/her valuable feedback that will help him/her in writing and understanding of a rhetorical analysis.

Tip:  Students are quick to compare & contrast the two writings, but the prompt tells you the writings do the SAME thing for the same topic.  This means you need to analyze ONE rhetorical strategy that you find in both texts.  And, it means you need 7-10 words from both text when you analyze the strategy.

Tip 2:  Satire!  What is it?  This is when a writer makes fun of and criticizes at the same time.  It is quite sophisticated to write, but it can be amazingly effective.  So, the prompt tells you it is Satire!  The strategy supports this satire!

This blog is due by Sunday, November 9, 2014 by 11:59PM.  This is the LAST BLOG for this semester!

[Derrick Lyons]

Edward’s two passages ‘’The people first critic stereotypes the environmentalist and the environmentalist stereotypes the people first critics,’’ argues that environmentalist is in reality for their own selfishness, not the natural environment. Wilson uses the rhetorical strategy assertion which is the starting point of an argument that can be backed up with specific details. Wilson wrote this article in 2002 which is close to present days time where things are becoming more industrialized than ever before and pollution and harm to the environment is at an all time high, so there is a need for conservationist to help the environment. As a conservationist make more laws against pollution and endangered species, Wilson begins to question are conservationist really for their own environment or are they for what interest them. Wilson's main purpose of his argument is to show that conservationist are not really trying to help the environment but are in their own self interest. ‘’their own self interest for sure not the environment.’’ Their own self interest tells what conservationist idolize most important to them and not the natural environment tells what they are using to cover up their selfish interest. Edward’s emphasizes that conservationist are deceiving the American people with their constant laws and new regulations about pollution and endangered species, but in reality they want power and prestige for themselves. Edward’s want the reader to think that he/she has been deceived for so long and now it is time for them to open up their eyes and see the truth. This gets them to feel ignorant and stupid. Edward gains remedy knowing that he has exposed the truth of the perpetual and falsified conservationist.

[Jayla Baptist]

American biologists, Edward O. Wilson, in his argumentative article, differentiate both accounts of environmentalism and people- first advocates and their opinions of each other. Wilson's purpose is to illustrate the immature manner of environmentalists and thee debates regarding one's position. His appeal to the audience is conveyed through pathos. Instead of using statics, facts, or logically- based arguments, the author maintains a sense of emotion. The use of pathos is directly stated as he calls conservationists "enviros" and "environmental wackos" while on the opposing side calls people- first advocates "brown lashers." The arguments are indeed childish and not appropriate for a man of such potential. Wilson states that environmentalists are only interested in there people; "they want... to create... jobs for their kind...", referring to them as, "The New Class." Again, such diction is foolish and tasteless. Wilson goes on to use a subjectively- based hypothetical thinking on both arguments. When a citizen "relax [es] [their] guard" or when "these people" (environmentalist) are in power, their "property rights go down the tube." Not once does Wilson mention the marketing affects environmentalists have on society. He then uses the same approach in the other article to portray the back-and-forth illustration. He mentions that people-first advocates main priority is "economic growth." The arguments provided in both debates will have little to no impact, but Wilson puts the writings together to only create an unproductive argument.

[Kiana Hillery]

In the first passage Edward O. Wilson wrote focuses on the environmentalist being mostly fraudulent. He tries to tell his audience, the readers of the book The Future of Life, how they use that they are environmentalists to try and gain power and control. The rhetorical device in this passage is overgeneralization. He uses a couple of overgeneralizations and one example he uses is “Some students...find...endangered...spider...Species Act...shut you down.” Over generalization is a fallacy in which the author draws too general of a conclusion from the presented information on arguments. How it is this device is that the author states this like it happens every time over the tiniest things. In actuality it probably does not happen as often as he says it does. The author uses this in his passage because he wants to give an example on how environmentalist are inrashionaly trying to gain power. He thinks that Environmentalist are only looking for their best interests and he feels that property owners know what is best for their land and should be able to say what is best for tit. He thinks that a strong growing free market is what's best for America’s environment. Wilson claims that environmentalists are trying to expand federal government. What Wilson could gain from his passage is that he will get peoples attention on how environmentalists act and how they are using them being environmentalists to snatch political power.

On Monday, October 27, 2014 12:23:29 AM UTC-4, Angelann Stephens wrote:

[Kiana Hillery]

I do agree with you that he does not use a lot of logic in his passage and that he mostly tries to base his response on emotions to try and get the audience to see what he is syaing. He talks about how they are not really paid attention unless you are rich and powerful. he tries to show how little they are to them.

[Antania Wyatt]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Wilson satirizes the language of two groups that hold opposing attitudes about environmentalism

Audience: Environmentalists and “People-first” critics

Type of Text: Passage, Book

Strong Verb: Ridicule

American naturalist and scientist, Edward O. Wilson ridicules two groups with opposing views on environmentalism by mocking them in two passages. In both passages, Wilson use pathos, persuading by appealing to the reader’s emotion, to expose the groups’ stupidity. In the first section, people-first critics claim that environmental laws hinder economic growth and environmentalists’ plans will affect the people financially “what’s at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars.” The author knows the audience will not respond well after being informed that they will have to come out of pocket. In the second section, environmentalists claim that environmental critics rarely pay attention to the environment “we hope to attract the attention of the media” and have to petition because they don’t consider conservation a topic worth of discussion in gatherings “get unelected rulers to look out the window”. The author makes the audience empathize after informing them that it’s hard as environmentalists to get their views acknowledged. The author’s purpose is to show that both groups are more about themselves, instead of the environment and others. The use of pathos enhanced this argument; in each passage, the groups focused on getting the support of the people (pathos) by blaming each other as the problem. Wilson wants them to realize that their stubborn attitudes will never give them the chance to see each other’s sides. Instead of continuing in an unproductive cycle, they should come to a compromise, one that uses conservation methods and ensures economic well-being. Wilson knows that if he gets the attention of both groups he gains confirmation of a chance to save the natural world and its treasures.

[Hailey Sanders]

Okay Derrick! Good analysis. But to be frank with you, I'm not understanding how your analysis supports the rhetorical strategy assertion. How does that relate to satire? But good  job connecting the analysis to your purpose. It connects extremely well. Also, your diction is becoming immaculate and so is your transitioning and syntax.

[Antania Wyatt]

Kiana I think that you should work on the organization and flow of your blog, this made it hard to fully follow your writing at the beginning. You also have it confused; you analyzed the quote and its connection with the strategy,but you told how the two groups behaviors affects Wilson instead of how Wilson's satire affects the two groups.

[Aziza Abdul-Aziz]

Aziza Abdul-Aziz

November 21^st, 2014 Pd: 3A

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Wilson speaks of the hypocrisy of both sides of the “Environmentalist” spectrum.

Type of text: Passage

Strong verb(s): Satirizes

In the two passages Edward O. Wilson mimics two groups that have opposing opinions concerning environmentalism, in doing so he satirizes both groups. Wilson effectively uses Enumeratio as a rhetorical strategy -- he makes a point then goes on to give details. In the first passage he makes the point that Environmentalists or conservationists use the environment as “an instrument for gaining political power” and to support the point he made about environmentalists he gives the detail that “they want environmental laws and regulatory surveillance to create government –supported jobs for their kind of bureaucrats, lawyers, and consultants”;  furthermore Wilson goes on to say that if we[the people] were to “relax our guard while these people[environmentalists] are in power our property rights would go down the tubes.” In the second passage Wilson makes the claim that “anti-environmentalists” “are the worst bunch of hypocrites” to support his claim Wilson states that the anti – environmentalists “keep their right wing political agenda mostly hidden when down grading climate change and species extinction.”  Wilson continues further on to say that “their idea of conservation is stocking trout streams and planting trees around golf courses.” In conclusion Edward O. Wilson uses Enumeratio as a rhetorical strategy to mimic both groups with opposing opinions.

[Aziza Abdul-Aziz]

i really enjoyed reading your blog, the rhetorical strategy is clearly identified , and you gave clear indications as to why Wilson uses pathos.

[Antania Wyatt]

Jayla by your blog I can tell that you understand the author's purpose you state that both groups display immaturity and their arguments are unproductive,but some things are still left unclear,How does the Wilson want to affect the audience? By putting out this book what does Wilson gain?

On Friday, November 21, 2014 1:40:27 PM UTC-5, Jayla Baptist wrote:

[Mercy Madu]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Wilson discuss the two stereotypical debates about environmentalism.

Type of Text: Passage

Strong Verb(s): Satirize, Ridicule, Criticize

Scientist and author of The Future of Life, Edward O. Wilson wrote two arguments between the people-first critic and the environmentalist due to the economy. Using pathos, Wilson capture the audience's attention by providing their support for each group. For "The People-First Critic Stereotypes the Environmentalists", the critics assume that the environmentalists want to gain power by expanding the federal government. "What's at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars and mine..." This portrays that the environmentalists are causing harm by pursuing in acts that are not necessary. Whereas in "The Environmentalist Stereotypes the People-First Critics", the conservationists believes that the critics aren't helping the environment rather than helping themselves. "[T]hese people are the worst bunch of hypocrites you'll ever want to find." The environmentalists are explaining that the critics accused them of thinking about themselves when in reality, the critics were the selfish ones. Wilson illustrate the childish debates between the two and not once mention what each of the groups would do for the economic crisis that took place near the 2000's. Instead, both the advocates and the conservationists belittle on one another on what they're doing wrong and what would happen if they continue this way. This was the whole point of what Wilson was trying to create: a senseless, stereotypical argument with no significance on the issue itself. Wilson knows that once he seize the groups' attention of the lack of integrity they display, he'll gain a sense of hope that a change would be made to protect the environment.

On Monday, October 27, 2014 12:23:29 AM UTC-4, Angelann Stephens wrote:

[Mercy Madu]

Your blog was very well-written. Your indication on why Wilson wrote the passages was very vivid. Not to mention, you did well on explaining how pathos was involved in his writing.

[Thierno Diallo]

Famous author and biologist, Edward O. Wilson, wrote two passages supporting each side pertaining to environmentalism. Wilson’s purpose was to educate readers about the pros and cons of environmentalists. He effectively does so by using an angry and accusatory tone as a rhetorical device. Wilson starts by saying “the whackos have a broad and mostly hidden agenda". This quote makes readers distrust environmentalist, making it difficult for them to spread their propaganda. Another quote Wilson uses to support this is "relax your guard when these people are in power and your property rights will go down the tube". this accusation helps Wilson's purpose because its telling readers, if they allow environmentalist to gain power than it will affect them directly causing them to lose their house, and land ,further helping Wilson to create a divide between readers and environmentalists. In his second passage Wilson strikes back Anti environmentalists by saying that anti environmentalists real goal is to have unrestrained capitalism and land rights, making them hypocrites because all they want to do is protect their land not yours refuting there quote stating that "relax[ing] your guard when these people[environmentalists] are in power your property rights will go down the tube". Anti-environmentalist ends their passage by questioning conservative’s role by saying “right wingers have made the word conservatives a mockery. What are they trying to conserve? Their own selfishness and interests, for sure, not the natural environment”. Wilson represented both sides of the argument well, shedding light on new information to this growing topic.

[Thierno Diallo]

Good job Kiana I liked the diction you used in your blog however be careful when you shorten quotes because when you quoted “Some students...find...endangered...spider...Species Act...shut you down.” it didn't make any sense. But overall it was a good blog.

[Dei Tafari]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Wilson discuss the two stereotypical debates about environmentalism.

Type of Text: Passage

Strong Verb : Satirize



Scientist , critical thinker and author of The Future of Life, Edward O. Wilson wrote two debates between the people-first critic and the environmentalist due to the economy. Using pathos, Wilson attract the audience's attention by providing details on each group . For "The People-First Critic Stereotypes the Environmentalists", the critics assume that the environmentalists want to gain power by expanding the federal government. "What's at stake as they busy themselves are your tax dollars and mine..." This portrays that the environmentalists are causing harm by pursuing in acts that are not necessary. On the other hand in "The Environmentalist Stereotypes the People-First Critics", the conservationists believes that the critics are benefiting themselves rather then helping the environment . "These people are the worst bunch of hypocrites you'll ever want to find." The environmentalists are explaining how the critics assumed they were thinking only of themselves but in reality, the only selfish ones was the critics. Wilson shows how each group has there disagreements but neither explain what there going to do to contribute to the environment . This is Wilson's goal , to display how each group mentions nothing that'll benefit the economy but rather discuss each other weaknesses. Wilson's hopes that after exposing each group on the lack of devotion and care that a change will come to improve the environment .

[Michael Green]

In 2002, Edward O. Wilson, an American biologist, gives the viewpoint of opposing sides of the argument of environmentalism. Wilson uses his satire to prove how silly and unproductive both sides sound. In both passages, Wilson invokes the rhetorical strategy of pathos. He grabs the attention of his audience by using sarcasm."Depending on how angry...environmental extremists, or environmental wackos." He hints at how ridiculous it is that people resort to name-calling to get their argument across. Both sides are constantly calling each other names, as if they are in elementary school trying to be superior. This form of rhetoric is ineffective because it shows that they are stooping down to each other's level. By the end, both sides sound ridiculous and neither side is effective for their cause.

[Dei Tafari]

Great use of details . You also choose great word choice . I also liked your rhetorical strategy you did a good job explains how it effects the passage

[Zachary Thomas]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Opposing attitudes about environmentalism

Strong Verbs: Satirize, Criticize, Ridicule

Well-known scientist and author, Edward O. Wilson, provides two opposing views on environmentalism in the economy in his book "The Future of Life." The arguments are between the people-first critics and the environmentalists. Wilson's rhetorical strategy used throughout these two arguments is pathos. By using pathos, he shows emotion in both arguments, and uses evidence against the opponent to prove the case. For "The People-First Critics, the critics believe environmentalists use conservation of energy to gain political power or support. "Their aim is... They want environmental... Lawyers, and consultants." If environmentalists expand the federal government, the critics believe that conservation will become popular, and they also believe that it is not needed in America's economy. Whereas, the environmentalists call out the "people-first critics" and portray them as people who do not work for the best interest of our nation. Instead, they are trying to make a profit off of our energy. "Their idea of... The conception of... Loggers and ranchers." At the end of their argument, the environmentalists call out the "people-first critics" as hypocrites, and argue that they are only looking out for their best interest. Wilson is showing us two different views on environmentalism, and reveals to us which side is really looking out for our best interest concerning conservation of energy.

[Zachary Thomas]

Great job Thierno!! I loved your use of diction, and effectively explaining both arguments that Wilson wrote.

[diamond lazenby]

Edward O. Wilson discloses two opposing view points in his excerpts, "the people-first critic stereotype the environmentalist" and "the environmentalist stereotypes the people-first critics." The people-first critics wants to protect their constitutional rights in regards to property rights and other freedoms allotted us under the fourth and fifth amendments; however the environmentalist claim they want to "conserve" the environment. The unbiased author efficaciously uses satire to identify the mocking, ridicule, name calling and finger pointing that both groups demonstrate towards each other. Satire is a literary art form that ridicules human folly or vice hoping to correct it. He exhibits the people-first critics slandering of the environmentalist. According to the people-first critics, the environmentalist are "environmental extremists" and " environmental wackos". Moreover he demonstrates the environmentalist's character assignation to the people-first critics by saying, "but we know them more accurately as anti-environmentalist." "These people are the worst bunch of hypocrites ..." Both parties name call each other to validate their point of view; both groups feel as though their ideas are right and better than the other. The author's purpose was to show how both groups are pointing fingers at each other, and how they can't come up with a resolution. Environmentalist accuse the people-first critics for making the word "conservative " a mockery by conserving their own selfish interest and not the natural environment; whereas the people first critics accuses the environmentalist of " creeping socialism" versus a strong growing free market economy. Both groups accuse each other of having a hidden political agenda. Wilson affects the audience by bringing an objective view point for both sides and presenting both sides in an unbiased way. He gains attention to both sides by exposing how both side are counterproductive. Both sides actually have the same grievances if they would just take the time to come to this realization. Bipartisanship would foster productivity, resulting in real solutions becoming the main focus rather than taunting each other.

[marrer...@gmail.com]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson
Ocassion: Wilson satirizes the language of two opposing attitudes about environmentalism
Type of text: Passages from a book
Strong Verb: Satirizes

In these two passages contemporary scientist, Edward O. Wilson, discusses the hypocritical acts of environmentalist being selfish; the only thinf they are trying to "conserve" would be the minds of big time landowners and coporate heads to be on their side and does this by satirizing the two views speaking on environmentalism. Wilson uses the rhetorical strategy of tone- the general attitude of a piece of writing and reveals his true feelings on environmentalist. In the first passage Wilson calls the enivornmentalist "greens, enviros, environmental wackos," and by saying this he is satirizing group of environmentalist by making a mockery of their own name. In the second passage, Wilson gives the examples of "...stocking trout streams and planting trees around golf courses" that would be referred to as "good deeds" that the environmentalist perfom, however the environmentalist care nothing for the goodness of the planet or others, but themselves. Wilson reveals their hypocritical acts as he publicizes the greed in their hearts for the conservation of their own self interest. These passages were written to attract the attention of the environmentalists and the public to publicly shame the so claimed "Earth Savers."

[marrer...@gmail.com]

I think you should focus more on the connection of your rhetorical strategy to the text, but overall it was nice.

[marrer...@gmail.com]

I like your closing to your blog it really made me feel impact as it ended.

[marrer...@gmail.com]

I like how you stepped outside of just doing the normal & connected it to the year it was written and how it affects the time period.

[diamond lazenby]

Derrick your blog was hard to follow and I think that the author was unbias, he presented both sides. Your explanation does not really support your rhetorical device it mainly supports argumentation. He doesn't use specific evidence or examples it's mainly opinions .

[Juanaisia Shabazz]

[Hailey Sanders]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: The Future of Life

Type of text: Passage from book

Strong Verbs: asserts, demonstrate, and mocks

 

                Noted contemporary scientist Edward O’ Wilson’s book, The Future of Life (2002), asserts the idiotic and futile squabble between opposing attitudes on environmentalism.  Wilson mocks the two groups in his satirical piece in order to demonstrate the unproductiveness of these incessant arguments. Wilson establishes his claim with the usage of diction which is juvenile and immature. The passage initiates with name-calling, the environmentalist detesters calling environmentalists “greens, enviros… or environmental wackos,” and the environmentalist call the anthropocentric group, “brown lashers… wise users.” Also, the usage of inadequate verbs and adjectives show the infantile ignorance that both groups have pertaining to the others argument. The anthropocentric group states, “Extinction is a bad thing,” bad being the adjective that is supposed to make the audience believe they comprehend the problem when in fact they have not taken the first step in a formal debate: know your opponent. In brief, Wilson’s satirical tone constructed by the child-like diction is both humorous and effective. The audience, including both groups, is enlightened: instead of focusing on bringing the other team down by bullying like toddlers and school children, they will focus on something far more productive- anything else.

[Michael Green]

You had a few grammatical errors, but overall your blog was really well written.

[Razberry Roberts]

Speaker : Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Wilson discusses the two stereotypical and opposing debated about environmentalism .

Audience: "People First "- Critics and Environmentalists.

Type of Text : passage

Strong Verb : mimicking

In the passage of American biologist , Edward O. Wilson's argumentative article, it discusses how he not only separate people's first advocates and their opinions of one another and the accounts of environmentalism. It also seems as though Wilson was mimicking them in the two passages that he wrote. LmWilson used the rhetorical device of pathos - which persuades people by appealing to the readers emotion through the text. He wanted to broadcast their ignorance and immaturity by doing so. To prove this rhetorical device he called his opposing argumentors " environmental wackos " but then he called his first advocates " brown lashers." Both arguments really were immature and didn't have a true purpose. The author tried to get his audience to understand that it would would complicated for environmentalists to get their views and opinions acknowledged by the others. This shows that both groups , are more so in it for themselves and not the good of the people and environment. In the second passage Both groups also pointing the finger - putting blame to one another which also relates to pathos ( appeal to the peoples emotion ) because that's how they tried to get the support that they needed . Wilson's position is to get the support of the people because he doing that he now gains the opportunity to change and/or rescue the people and environment .

[Jabrie'l Thompson]

Edward Wilson, author of The Future of Life,  satirizes the language of two groups that hold opposing attitudes about environmentalism in his novel. His purpose is to demonstrate to his audience-readers of The Future of Life- how ridiculous both opposing sides sound. Wilson's use of pathos only strengthens the effect. His appeal to emotion comes bluntly across with his tasteful use of diction. Calling the environmentalists "greens, enviros, environmental extremists, [and] environmental wackos" and the people-firsts "brown lashers and anti-environmentalists", he exhibits their unproductive and childish behavior. Both sides attack each other rather than discuss the actual issue at hand- the environment. Wilson continues to appeal to emotion with the mentions of "creeping socialism" and "selfish interests", urging the audience to feel anger against their opposer. Their ongoing blame game plants seeds of doubt in the reader's minds, urging them to concur with their stance. While both sides accentuate the other is up to no good, neither actually states their position on the environment. This further supports Wilsons' belief of their unproductive nature in such discussions.

[Razberry Roberts]

Good Job Dei ! It seems as though you undertsood the story and as you blogged it , you was really short, simple , and to the point. I think you couldve some better words but over all it was a job well done !

[Razberry Roberts]

G R E A T use of details. It was kind a confusing but I put it together as best as I could which made me understand it better. You chose some very productive words as well . Good Job !

[Razberry Roberts]

Your blog is the very blog that I read which was amazing . You were very specific, detailed and to the point. You also made everythig clear and understandable. I like how you connected your rhetorical strategies to the quotes that you used. You used a good choixe of words as well. It was nice

[Ammaarah Hamidullah]

      Edward O. Wilson, in what critics call an ingenious book on how to save this detiorating world, calls out the two great obstacles of him and all eco conscious minds like him: the environmental wackos,also known as the environmentalists and the the sage bush rebels,more accurately known as the anti-environmentalist.  Wilson comically and efficaciously satirizes to expose both groups as the hypocritical, rapacious people that they are. "..conservation pushed by these people always goes too far because it is an instrument for gaining political power." "What they are really after is...is unrestrained capitalism...They keep their right-wing agenda mostly hidden.." The fact that Wilson dissected them and found similar motives is ironic. Both groups complains about the other group giving power to a certain group and taking it away from theirs. In both paragraphs, Wilson uses name calling and generalizes their viewpoints. The names Wilson brands them are comical,informal, and somewhat derogatory especially since environmentalists are regarded as a highly intellectual group. By paralleling both groups in such a way, Wilson says that they're unproductive. Wilson is very straight forward with his points. The forwardness and name calling make it easier to comprehend. Wilson understands unlike these groups, the severity of conservation and does the eco concious community a great justice.

[Jabrie'l Thompson]

Your diction is great, your device is clear, and its obvious you understood the passage. My only concern is how you failed to show how it affected the audience

[Jabrie'l Thompson]

Your device is clear and your style is evident. Good job

[Dominique Rivers]

Speaker: Edward O. Wilson

Occasion: Parody of opposing attitudes about environmentalism

Type of text: Passage

Strong verbs: demonstrate/express/emphasize

 

Contemporary scientist, Edward O. Wilson, in his book The Future of Life (2002), writes two passages demonstrating the futile and juvenile behavior of two opposing groups, the environmentalists and the people- first critics. Wilson’s purpose is to express the pointless debate over environmentalism held by the two opposing groups. He adopts a derision tone in order to mock the two opposing groups. Wilson uses the rhetorical strategy parallelism (similar patterns of words) to emphasize how childish the two opposing groups sound in debate. Wilson says “we call them greens, enviros, environmental extremists” in the first passage; likewise, in the second passage, using the same structure, he says “we know them … as anti-environmentalists, and brown lashers… wise users and sagebrush rebels”. This use of parallelism creates rhythm and balance becoming pleasing to the reader’s ear. Also it gives the sentence a smooth flow making it easier for the reader to understand. The clarity in the sentences allows the reader to catch Wilson’s mockery convincing them that these two groups fight like children. Wilson wants these two opposing groups to use reasoning instead of pointing fingers. Wilson efforts to reveal to the opposing groups their unproductive nature will gain him some sense that they will compromise and find a productive solution to benefit the environment and the economy. 

[Dominique Rivers]

Antania this is an MARVELOUS blog! I enjoyed reading the flow and complexity of it. I applaud you. You can see the growth in your writing from your first blog. You should keep up the good work and continue on improving. You deserve an A+ for effort!