JOHN STEWART SHOW-FALLACIES

The first fallacy I noticed was the Hasty generalization fallacy. He made the statement that illegal Immigrants are diseased, rapist, drunks that act with immoral behavior.  And, that is not true. He is stereotyping immigrants. We as intelligent people know that disease is not dependent on the race. We as Americans, have disease among us as well.  I am sure that third world countries, such as Mexico, do have more disease in them. Not because of who they are, but because of the lack of medical treatment available to the people. Simply, all races have rapist, drunks and disease.

   The next fallacy I noticed was the Post hoc fallacy.  He wanted us to believe that because we have allowed illegal immigrants in the United States that is why we have had leprosy.  He then followed up with some grafts that showed a study. He wanted us to feel that that the action of letting the immigrants in has then caused the leprosy being brought here.  When actually, the graft he showed, was not from a reputable source or based on actual studies. Once we were given some accurate information that has been investigated by the reputable show Sixty Minutes. We find out that there were only 7000 cases of leprosy in the United States over the last thirty years.  We also found out that out of those cases, they are not sure of how many, or if any were immigrants. When in all actuality, one has nothing to do with the other.

    The last fallacy I noticed was the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Again, the so called expert showed small chopped up clips that showed political icons using some of the same verbage he was using such as immigrants, and leprosy.  He wanted the people to think, that because the reputable politicians were talking about the subject(s) that they are blaming the immigrants for the leprosy. Although, the politicians are not experts on disease or leprosy study, he wanted us to believe them, because of who they are.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/population.html

This is one of the Montana Fish and Wildlife sites that show nothing but facts, and results from the research studies, done over the last thirty years, which I think is very important. Research over the last thirty years should give us a nice rounded picture of where we were and where we are at now. This site will show the continued rising numbers of the wolf packs, and where they are located, and how far they travel. It also has a lot of important information on the history of the wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. It gives us some good background information on the numbers and locations when they were re-introduced.

http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/wolf/game.html

This is another site that is packed full of information and data that has been collected over the past 10 years or so. Although, this site is mainly based on the large game numbers and how the deer and elk population has decreased, as the wolf population has increased. It discusses each individual district in the state .It gives some good numbers that show when the wolves move in the big game numbers go down.  It gives a good idea of the amount of big game the average wolf will consume to survive the winter months.  I think this is a good article, due to the fact that it factors in the other animals that take the big game population down as well. It has a lot about the bear and mountain lion population and http://www.friendsoftheclearwater.org/articles/northern-rockies-gray-wolf-delisting-fact-sheetshows that increased growth as well.

http://www.friendsoftheclearwater.org/articles/northern-rockies-gray-wolf-delisting-fact-sheet

Friends of the Clearwater, is a group that is working towards keeping the wolves on the endangered list.

This group is one of the handfuls of environmental groups that are fighting the federal government for the way the wolves were delisted then relisted then delisted this last time.  They do not feel that the way the wolves were delisted this last time was fair or legal, since the wolves were only delisted in the states of Idaho and Montana but not in Wyoming.  I understand there is a legal battle here, they are fighting for.  What I do not like about this article is that they are name calling. They are calling hunters killers. And they feel that people, who hunt, do so out of anger. I think that that they would get there point across better, if they would stick to the facts.

http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/solutions/wolf_compensation_trust/wolf_predation_and_livestock_losses.php

Defenders of Wildlife are another one of the groups that is working to protect the wolves. I really like the way this group presents there side of it.  They go about it by reporting the facts and showing the research they have collected.  Their position is that wolves are not the only predator that is killing the livestock and big game throughout the state. However they are focused mainly on the livestock portion of the battle. They also give some good information on the wolf species. They educate us on the population, life span, how far they migrate, behavior and the reproduction. Which all is very important, so you can get the full picture, of what you are dealing with.

Wolf Hunting-
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/patricia-randolph-s-madravenspeak-defenseless-wolves-urgently-need-howl-of/article_871e795e-c950-57a3-8085-b4514c0614f9.html

http://www.fourthestatenewspaper.com/mobile/news/prominent-wisconsin-predator-no-longer-protected-1.2770852

WOLF HUNTING

The techniques of each article were kind of the same. Both sites wrote a little about why they should hunt and why they should not hunt, but then as you read more deeply into the article you can tell what side they are really on.  It seems to me everyone is kind of on a fence, or they are worried they might offend someone.  They know there is a problem and they know it needs to be corrected, but they do not want to be cruel to wolves and kill them.  In one site, they feel wolves should be hunted due to the decrease in the elk, beaver, rabbit and deer population.  Also the Ranchers are having trouble with the wolves killing their livestock. The Wolves are migrating closer and closer to civilization and moving closer to the towns.

     Then on the other site, we do not want to be cruel to the wolves and hunt them at night, which is when they are more active, because that would be cruel. These people feel that there should be a better way than hunting or killing them.  They did not seem to voice any ideas on what that would be.  Or bring up the financial aspect of it.

    The tone of the opposing side is kind of sad, and pulling at your heart strings.  They use the cruelty aspect of it a lot, and seem to feel bad for the wolves. I understand that they do not want the wolves to go extinct again.  The other side seems to think it would be better for the conservation of wild life and it would really help the ranchers, so they can survive this outbreak. There tone is sterner, these are the fact and something needs to be done about it.

  I think that the Ranchers and Fish and Wildlife are more convincing then the opposing side.   The reason I feel that way, is because they seem to have more written documentation.  Fish and Wildlife Department have been tracking the numbers and migration movements of deer, beavers, and elk for years. They know that the numbers have been declining for the past few years, and they know that the wolf population has been on the rise for the past few years.  They also know how much the average wolf eats in a month to survive, when you do the math, there is the proof for me. 

word count 405

                                                              Tim O'Brien

    I think that in order to write about war and what they went through in a war zone, they would have to mix some truth and some fiction together.  Not for the sake of the writer, as it is for the reader.  I do not believe the general public can handle the real truth about what a solder has to do, or is instructed to do by our government. And then be judged by the people who sent you over there, for what you had to do to survive.  For a Solder, it is kill or be killed. Their life and survival depends on the guns, bullets, bombs, and death.

   To come home and write about the war and what you experienced over there would be hard.  I think it is a delicate balance of the truth, reality and morals; enough to give the readers somewhat of a glance into combat, but not the full truth. I feel the full truth would disgust the readers.  While I was reading “How to tell a true war story” I felt he wanted to give us more of the truth, and I also felt he needed to get it out, in the public for his own personal mental health. But at the same time, I felt he was trying to protect us from the truth as well.  It must be very hard for a solder to be raised with good moral values as a child, and then be sent away into a war zone as an adult.  To a horrid place they must live each day, to the opposite of the way they were raised.

Word Count 272