Category: Work over the class

What are the first places I started to feel friction between my expectations in the story was an around page six or seven? Other New Yorker articles around this time are when it starts you know getting to the meat potatoes of the discussion. It starts to stop talking about the initial story that gets you into the topic and start to get into when the author brings up different sources to really bring the argument to life, but then the story kept going and going and going. I understand that this is about if Mark and Delia Owens methods have gone too far.I had just expected a lot more examples of conservation is you know crossing the hypothetical line in the sand with there conservation efforts. I wasn’t expecting the whole article to be a focus on just their conservation efforts. I was honestly hoping for a lot of different sources because I thought that might be something would be very common. I mean from the name alone it kind of sounds like a lot of people have done this but in actuality is referring to a couple. I mean if the article named Hunted by the Owens And had made it more parent that wasn’t just going to be these two people and their escapades across Africa shooting poachers and flying planes and dropping cherry bombs out of them.

 

I also expected to be but more ambiguous with how it talked about who is who didn’t go too far, but no we can just go right after Mark and Delia Owens, but in the beginning, it starts talking about them like they’re you know curious scientist who just wants to know about this life.  they want to study elephants, crocodiles, gazelles, and, the local ecology. As the article goes on though you start seeing as a couple of cracks in the facade. They set up a scientific research station, but then they start to talk about how it felt like they were the only two people in the universe out there and how it’s where they’re the happiest. Mark actions when he saw poacher shooting wildebeest and decided to dive bomb them with his mono-prop plane at 160 miles an hour. And when someone’s reaction to seeing animals getting killed is to endanger his life and the life of others it’s not really a good sign. After partitioning the Botswana government they were kicked out of the country for interfering with national Affairs after raising attention to the killing of wildlife and the nation did have reasons to do this but it’s still seemed a bit spiteful. They would turn to go to Northern Zambia and the parks there. They continue to romanticize this untouched wilderness even though there are people living in it. They continue to Rejoice at the beauty of life but this time there are a lot more prepared to defend it from poachers and take a much more aggressive stance.

 

Eventually, after a lot of time has passed at the park they have attempted to build a robust Anti-poacher strategy. They’ve helped arm Scouts that Patrol the parks to protect the wildlife, They started to help the communities in the area which normally help poachers build other ways of generating revenue, raise money from wealthy backers in the United States, and, have started regular aerial patrols. Soon interest grows around the work they’ve been doing in the park. Eventually, their efforts begin to become noticed by mainstream media back in the States and they appear on The Tonight Show and ABC ask to do a piece on their work good we send over camera crew and a producer. When the patrol Scouts around the park capturing footage War there show and then somebody shoots a poacher. The author makes a big effort to find who fired the shot and if the rumor that it was Mark who killed this man. He sued arrives at the cameraman who was filming the whole event who confirm said it was Mark who fired the shot and killed a man. It was a totally unexpected turn when I first read it I thought that it was just going to really be just stood in the third person I didn’t know if he doing this saying that this man committed murder in Africa.

 

Learn quite a lot from this article I learned that you don’t have to bluntly interject your ideas into an article in order to get your opinion across. That the best way to do it is to suddenly present evidence and tie it into a narrative in order to just give it a much more natural feel. It was objectively much better quality than other articles I read from the New Yorker that I have clearly stated their opinions which is pretty interesting. I mean he could have just said plainly stated in his opinions and said oh yeah these Owens really enter some gray area when giving objectively look at what they’re doing. the author lets the reader come to that conclusion by presenting the evidence.

 

• “We watched through binoculars as the slaughter continued along the shore,” Owens wrote in “Cry of the Kalahari.” “Trembling with rage, I pushed the control wheel forward and we plunged toward the lakeshore. The poachers were preoccupied with their butchery and did not see the aircraft until it was at ground level, roaring across the plain toward them at 160 miles an hour.” (page 3)

Maybe- seems dangerous to be so reckless with an aircraft with human lives on the line but also was done out of rage which is understandable

 

• Later, he orders his scouts, “If you see poachers in the national park with a firearm, you don’t wait for them to shoot at you. You shoot at them first, all right? That means when you see the whites of his eyes, and if he has a firearm, you kill him before he kills you, because if you let him get—if you let him turn on you with an AK-47, he’s going to cut you in two. So go out there and get them. Go get them, O.K.?”’

No – it’s your job to defend your life not get killed

 

• Over time, the Owenses, raising money in the United States, built a small network of grinding mills, fishponds, and sunflower-oil presses, with the goal of weaning local people from illegal hunting, and from providing help to the battalions of commercial poachers passing through their villages on the way to the park. But one of the scouts assigned to North Luangwa soon informed the Owenses that men from Chishala were serving as meat carriers for poachers based in another village: “ ‘From Chishala!’ I cry out,” Delia wrote. “Those men we gave jobs, and the soccer ball?” Page 9

No – There are helping the local to help stop poachers, but failing.

 

• “In the late nineteen-seventies and early eighties, there was a spike in the killing of Africa’s savanna elephants, caused largely by increased demand in Asia for ivory carvings. In 1979, there were about a million three hundred thousand elephants in Africa; ten years later, the population had fallen by half. By the late eighties, some countries, including Kenya, had found the problem serious enough to institute a shoot-to-kill policy, allowing poachers to be shot on sight. Zambia, which had no such official policy, was heavily afflicted by poaching. Its central government was corrupt in places, and ineffective at policing the country’s distant corners. For poachers, North Luangwa’s isolation made it a favored hunting ground.”

Yes -crossing the line favoring animal over humans

 

• Onscreen, the scout is shown from behind, running through brush and carrying a rifle. He approaches a man wearing a gray jacket and brown pants, lying prone in a small clearing. The man tries to move, lifting his head a few inches off the ground. The scout, his face blotted out electronically, fires a single shot at him. At this moment, a second figure is seen in the background. His face and upper body are blurred, so that even his race is obscured, but he is dressed in green and appears to be carrying a rifle. The camera turns to the wounded man, and Vieira says, in a voice-over, “The bodies of the poachers are often left where they fall for the animals to eat.” She pauses, and says, “Conservation. Morality. Africa.” Then, from offscreen, come three more shots. The camera stays focussed on the wounded man, lying on the ground. His body jerks at the first and third shots. Then it is still.

 

• Vieira does not indicate whether she, her producer, and her cameraman tried to learn the identity of the dead man, or whether he was a meat poacher, a commercial poacher, or simply a “trespasser,” as she calls him. The execution of the alleged poacher is not mentioned in the remaining twenty-five minutes of the broadcast.

Who was the trespasser ? No one ever look into who he was.

 

• Owens answers, “Worth more to whom? The elephant or the person? Ask the elephant. And ask the human. You’ll get two different answers.” In a voice-over, Vieira says, “Mark Owens calls it a ‘hardening of the human spirit,’ the ultimate price he has paid to work here.” The film returns to Owens, who says, “It’s a very dirty game. It’s a measure of the desperation of the situation, I think.”

How does Mark value human and animal lives? Human life doesn’t matter if it in dangers animal life constantly.

 

• But there is no evidence in “Deadly Game” that the alleged poacher was heavily armed, or armed at all, when he was shot, and it is by no means clear that Zambia tolerated the killing of poachers. The ABC program asserted that Zambia had an unwritten shoot-to-kill policy, and the Owenses later said that a former tourism minister named Christon Tembo visited the North Luangwa area shortly before the ABC crew arrived and told scouts that they could shoot poachers. But Zambia has never had a written shoot-to-kill law, and the government has stridently denied supporting such a policy informally; on occasion scouts who shot poachers have faced punishment.

It look like someone is hidden something from us.

• The American Embassy warned the Owenses not to enter Zambia until the controversy was resolved. In a consular memorandum of December 3, 1996, an official wrote that the Owenses “had better have ironclad assurances that they have been exonerated and that all arrangements are in place for their uneventful return before they consider such a move.” Kuchel told me that Zambia’s justice system was thoroughly corrupt, and he feared that if Mark Owens were held in a Zambian jail, he would be raped and infected with H.I.V.

Who would want to see in jail? Why would they bring up the worst case scenario right away? To draw attention away from the shooting and show the type of country they are working in.

 

• Forty miles west of the North Luangwa park is Shiwa Ng’andu, the lake of the royal crocodile. It was on these shores that, according to legend, a crocodile ate David Livingstone’s dog, and it was here, fifty years after Livingstone’s early explorations, that an eccentric Englishman named Stewart Gore-Browne decided to build an expansive plantation. Gore-Browne arrived in Northern Rhodesia during the First World War, as a member of a commission drawing the borders of southern Africa. He had dreamed of being the lord of a manor, and by 1926 he had completed the construction of a Tuscan-style mansion on twenty-three thousand acres of farmland. The monocled Gore-Browne lived out his life as the baron of Shiwa Ng’andu, hunting, farming, and building a factory for the processing of tropical oils. Thousands of Zambians depended on the semifeudal Shiwa plantation for their existence, but Gore-Browne became known over time for his advocacy of African self-rule. When he died, in 1967, he was hailed as a Zambian hero.

Why does the author include this in the Article?  Because is highlight the moral grey area that Mark is in.

 

• As Mark Owens assumed more authority over the valley and the game scouts, he extended his campaign against poachers beyond the borders of the national park. The Owenses now had a Bell helicopter as well as the Cessna, and the scouts were highly mobile, thanks to trucks provided to them by the Owenses’ conservation project. In “The Eye of the Elephant,” Delia described the first of a regular series of “village sweeps”: “The scouts raid villages all night—bursting into poachers’ huts while they sleep—and drive back to Mano in the morning, their truck loaded with suspects.”

Why are they using such invasive method? TO catch the poacher off grad.

Curiosity is a universal trait among people. I don’t know how curiosity starts it’s just there. From the days when your baby you see something go over to touch it and shove it in your mouth to see what it is. As you mature curiosity comes to refined. Start to know more about the world and the thing that make you curious become bigger and more complex. Whether it’s other people or what’s the highest part of the world. Curiosity manifests its way within almost every facet of society. That’s the reason why the government spends billions of dollars on a rocket, telescopes, deep sea submarines, weather balloons, expeditions, and, surveys. That’s why people travel the world to See as much as they can. It usually starts by seeing/hearing/tasting/feeling/smelling something weird or wondering something weird. This is usually followed up by a process research. This process can be very different depending on the situation and question. For example, if you smell something good you usually follow that up by trying to find the source of it or would ask someone “You smell that?”, Do you know where that came from”, or, “What are you cooking?”. If The question appears within academia a much more rigorous process of questions research and follow-ups made sinus. Attempting to probe deeper to find the actual answer. Therefore, in the settings, the questions are usually a lot of larger dead but is that smell. And a lot of times will do ask questions and receive answers it only makes more questions. And with room forever grow more questions you start to have sides and theories.  This is where arguments start to come into shape. They really based on how people interpret the world around them and to what means. People are always going to assume that their standpoint is rational because they assembled them from the surrounding evidence and answer questions. This evidence in answer to questions they start to present their argument to other sides and they will do the same. This created discourse between the to of them as they try and win out over the other’s argument. This struggle is self-improving in a way as either side need to become better and better and better to continue the argument. In the end to get a discourse that has created a constantly improving system which pushes reason to the forefront.  Which in question map you get to really see this fire and return fire method of argument especially been is “The Secret of Success”. Both Gladwell and Krulwich Firing off questions at each other to really talk about in depth this issue of success and talent. This is not so much the case equation for good where it is a story dressed up as an exchange of questions.

The conversation between Gladwell and Krulwich change focus a lot. The primary question of the podcast is “How do you explain people of really unusual talent”. They go on to talk about what factors can influence whether or not someone is a success. Birth month, Birth year, Parent Socal Standing, and, Birthplace. Using hockey as an explanation he talks about how if you’re born in the wrong month it can ruin the chance of getting good at it. Then they start to talk about how being a genius at something requires that love of that thing. All of the answers to the question didn’t leave a lot to desire. We didn’t get to hear the end of the conversation.

Octo. 1

• The shape is all ruff
• It is done in a sketching manner
• I do not like the portrait
• I just don’t like looking at it
• The style of the eye is one of the few things I like about It
• I see the rough outline of my self
• The drawing creates a weird sense of hate, self lothly, critical, and, need for improvement.
• Begrudging contentment
• I feel that it would be improved if the drawing was of something other than our self
• I was deeply disappointed by myself and think I could do better

INFORMAL Essay
I feel like all the concentration in the world couldn’t have helped me with this. The fact is I don’t have experience drawing face or self-portraits and that the thing. I’m going to drawing face, but if I focus on learning to do it. I can’t have expectations that I will make the best portrait in the class. If I don’t pay attention to my method and error I will never get good at it just like my writing.

Sept. 24-28

The Map

The Reading Notes

Reflection on Guest

https://une1-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/personal/dproto_une_edu/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B5E7699BD-CD07-4205-8273-A7CE327B272B%7D&file=Reflectsion%20on%20Student%20Who.docx&action=default&mobileredirect=true

Read and Mark up

Welcome to UNEPortfolios. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!