Welcome to another exciting blog post. This was essentially me the past few hours reading articles and thinking what to write about them.

 

But enough about myself lets move on to the differences I found between a op-eds and a JSTOR Daily article. First off they are a lot shorter than that of an JSTOR Daily. An op-eds is primarily opinionated from the authors' point of view containing very little use of outside logic and focusing more on getting the readers attention by stating values or concerns that the readers share in common which reinforces those values/norms but minimize actually supported evidence. 

Where as a JSTOR articles are long well developed pieces filled with not only the authors' opinion but also well supported evidence, scholarly research, and having an interesting topic. Such articles can minimize any doubt a reader may have on the authors credibility and insight of the topic they describe. 

The first of these articles that got my eye blog on about was about JSTOR "Stranger Things and the psychic nosebleed". At first I was like what nosebleeds? Psychic powers maybe? But anyways the article first describes on how films where having or using psychic powers can cause the user to have a nosebleed but as the author describes blood shed from a psychic women is considered taboo and a sign of women oppression in society. Author Liz Tracey, mentions Strange Things Eleven and Firestarters Charlie McGee as girls running away from the men who wish to use their powers to take over the world emphasizing that women are still oppress by men of power in our culture. Another example of this would be from the X-Men trilogy where faithful student Jean Grey is psychic who eventually loses control of her powers and turns evil. Just a fun note to add.

For the second JSTOR I read was on "How Does the Language of Headlines Work?". The Title of anything is what most audiences look before even viewing  the article. As the authors states that reading a title can be both easy or confusing to read but always with the prime objective of getting the readers attention and curiosity to find out the article is all about. Clickbait, which the author uses as an example, is something in the modern age of social media find quite often in our day to day web browsing. Whether said Clickbait articles speak the truth or not is not point but the fact that one would read it and click on it is the goal of the title giving. 

Third JSTOR article I read was that of the "Viral Black Death". When I first read this article I read it with an unbiased mentality because it talks about a serious subject that I'm were all familiar about. Racism in our society is still prevalent and having people videotaping and being shown on the media just proves it further. In this case it is about white officers against black communities. First off people primarily don't like cops. When your on the freeway and you see cop behind your first reaction may be that of anxiety not of joy or happiness. Is it because their after us as society, no but it is true that their are corrupt officers in America which only reinforces that opinion that people don't like cops. The author emphasizes all this hate is from previous mentalities that we as a nation must overcome and correct for a better future. 

Okay moving on to the op-eds  I started "Liberals are the sort of people who ...". I read this article I got to say that the author really doesn't like liberals.  Hawkins, the author, describes liberals as hypocrites from calling people racist but still black Americans stupid to calling guns bad but still believe officers can carrier them. I don't know if what he said is true or not but it's still interesting to read even though it didn't having anything to support it.

Next will be about "Donald Trumps Bet: We are all chumps". I'm amazed at how long these two candidates have been able to make it this far in the race but that is no surprise it only takes about a million dollars to run a campaign and it trumps case that was a given. Everything else such as tax, medical or emails records are up the candidates to decide whether they want to publicize or not. Is not that were "chumps" as the article states but Trump hasn't provided anything to contradict such opinion.   

 And now last one was about the LA Times "Criminal rape cases should not be on a ticking clock". Using the case Bill Cosby against more than 50 women who accused him of sexual assault as an example author, Gloria Allred, argues that need to eliminate the statute of limitations from being just 10 years. While ten years may a lot after said time has and someone wants to accused another of rape it is just to late. That's is what this article argues to remove such deadline from all states to prevent future sexual assault cases to be forgotten or ignored.

Well that's all from me see you guys later. Bye!