Thoughts in the mind of l0oree


Advance Composition discussion

The Gettysburg Address Analysis

Schreiner, Lori



Gettysburg Address Analysis

Applying five motives

What I find most interesting about the Gettysburg Address is the theme of birth along with the contrast of death. The beginning implies the birth of a new nation. “Conceived in liberty” is the start of the nation in the past. Now is currently contemplating if the liberties still exist by stating “any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure”. The very next sentence ties this together stating,” We are met on the great battlefield of that war.” The next sentence brings the focus to death with the words “Final resting place” and “gave their lives” and at the end of that very sentence stresses the word live stating “that that nation might live”. The next sentence repeats “can not” three times in the one sentence. The next sentence has life and death in the same sentence. This sentence contrast “living and dead” and also contrast “add or detract”. The next sentence takes a pause by using words “long remember” “never forget”. After the sentence that pauses, brings me to want to move forward by the use of the word “living”. This sentence also implies can do three times by using the adverbs “for us”, “to be”, and “here to”. The end of this sentence punctuates “us the living” at the beginning stating “nobly advanced”. The last sentence ties together that the honored dead should not have died in vain contrasted with how they won’t die in vain as a birth of a new nation, “a new birth of freedom”.

“post your analysis of which repetition, strand, or binary is most important for understanding what it is you are observing.”

The most important in my analysis

Binary: 1. living and the dead, 2. far above/poor power, 3. add/detract

Repetition:” We can not” repeated 3 times. People repeated 3 times

Strand: the most important strand is the first one ” gave their lives that that nation might live” this strand includes repetition with” that that” and also the lives/live and binary “gave their lives” meaning dead vs. “live” this first strand is genius in my eyes.

Last sentence is a string of strands with three of them starting with the word that.

This whole speech is pure genius, I could probably write a 5 page paper on this one speech.

Yes, I see that also that the President includes everyone in using we the people, living and dead, past and present. He unites everybody and then wants everyone to remember this war to never repeat this to always move forward reaching for a better tomorrow. We can by remembering this past become better in the future.



Advance composition Rasmussen College

Facebook a Cultural Phenomenon

     I notice co-workers on Facebook at work all the time. During break everyone sits around the table staring at their cell while chatting with each other. Nobody telling of what is going on on the cell.  Why?  There is television in the room.  There are humans in close encounters that we know and can communicate with.  Do we need the comfort of knowing we can talk every second of the day with our closer friends and loved ones?  While working can look at the latest status of your daughter to feel comfortable knowing she is still in this word somewhere looking at her cell also. We are all different close together and far apart. All on the same thing doing the same- checking the Facebook status of friends and family.  Will this continue until all we do is check the status until that will become our status? 

      “Founded in 2004, Facebook’s mission is to make the world more open and connected. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.”(Facebook newsroom fact sheet, , retrieved April 15, 2012) So we continuously sit and share what matters to us in a status hundreds of miles away, hoping possibly it matters to them too.  Why?  There are others in the room in close proximity? Do we matter to them as much? Or are we bored, and it’s a chance to break away from the mundane routine of life at work and step into the status of others far off?




  1. Facebook newsroom fact sheet, , retrieved April 15, 2012


Conservation of Resources







Lori Schreiner

Conservation of Resources

Rasmussen College








Based on your reading from the text and what you came across on the Internet, explain what is meant by a rangeland. Do you think the government should charge fees for ranchers to use public rangelands for their herds? Or is the management of the ecological services provided by rangelands services something for which all citizens should be contributing? Explain in 2-3 paragraphs, including at least 1 cited research resource.


Rangelands are open areas of land that have shrubs, grass, and open fields.  The land is necessary for the habitat of animals that can get energy from cellulose.  These animals are needed to produce milk.  The other animals that live in the range only eat the things that are low in cellulose.  The world would run out of milk to feed the world without rangeland.  Cows supply most of our milk due to the size of their digestive organs. 

I believe all citizens should contribute to the management of the rangelands.  We are a blessed nation to have this land and as a nation should contribute for its use to remain for the survival of not only cows but everything that milk provides for everyone.  Milk is what babies drink, contains vital nutrients and minerals for all to survive.




Launchbaugh, Karen. “overview”., retrieved 6/13/2012

Conservation of Resources discussion

Currently, the USDA provides substantial subsidies to farmers and ranchers to help them blend good farm practices and profitability. These subsidies include floor price subsidies for selected crops and products, land set-aside for soil renewal, crop rotation, protection of endangered species, wetland preservation, and other considerations.

Based on your reading from the text and what you came across on the Internet, use your own words to explain what “Sustainable Agriculture” is. Do you think efforts to find sustainable agricultural practices in this country should be subsidized? Explain your answer.

I think that subsidies do help to maintain sustainability. The subsidies are used so as to farms do not have to use up all their resources to grow a crop. The water, soil etc.. is maintained to not upset the made ecosystem for that individual farm. I do think that much food could be made carelessly but would not be sustained. It would be just as costly and cause damage to resources. The price of water itself would rise for everyone due to it would become scarce resource. Pesticides would contaminate soil and food more and more until it would affect animal survival. I do think that subsidies used for this are becoming just as corrupt as the subsidies used for oil.

Yes I believe also this is greatly needed to preserve the land, communities, wildlife, etc in a safe manner. I think educated farmers should be able to lobby and speak up on what is needed to help sustain healthy crops along with what is hindering it. They should be able to say example this new road through my crop is going to hinder my water supply or etc……I am just using this as an assumption for I am not a crop expert this is why I think the farmer should be able to speak on their individual behalf. Also due to each farm is totally different than the next one with totally different pest, animals, plants, soil, water supply etc…One rule of thumb might not be needed with one farm but something else that is not even mentioned could be needed.

Yes I am for this for the fact that this is needed to have better quality food and preserves wildlife, soil and protects the planet. The best part of sustainable agriculture is that it is self-sufficient with watering, soil, nutrients, etc… with the environment. The ecosystem is manageable without outside force or interference. When agriculture is not sustainable the food it produces lacks valuable nutrients and could die out altogether. Seeds will become rarer and rarer to find that produce good quality food when the environment is interfered with. The seeds could possibly even become extinct just like an animal can become extinct. No one pays as much attention to the seeds because they are seemly abundant. Pollution, pesticides effect seeds as well as the food the seeds produce. Also the environment, example bees are much needed for pollination. I am not an expert on these things but do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that sustainable agriculture is important enough to be subsidized.

The downside to subsidizing the agriculture is greed. That senator that I worked for that was the owner of an oil company also grew up as a farmer. He had many, many friends that farm. I went with him to the country club in Stuttgart, AR where he gave a speech once. Stuttgart if some might not know is the rice capital of the world not just this country but the world. He created laws with the farming like the laws with the oil that are non-disclosed. I do have friends that are farmers and according to some sources they say it’s possible to make more money letting crops go bad on purpose than to have a good crop.


Conservation of Resources discussion

In 2009, the US imported 1.7 billion barrels of petroleum from OPEC nations, and 2.5 billion barrels from non-OPEC nations. The largest supplier is Canada (with nearly 1 billion barrels), followed by Mexico (just under half a billion barrels) then Saudi Arabia. (Check for details on the website of the US Energy Information Administration:

To help reduce this dependence on foreign oil, there is growing pressure to begin using America’s abundant reserves of tar sands and oil shale. Based on your assigned reading and what you came across on the Internet, do you think mining tar sands and oil shale is a good alternative to imported oil? Or, do you think the higher cost and additional damage to the environment caused by mining these makes foreign oil more appealing? Or perhaps you have another alternative. Whichever you chose, please explain with details.

I believe that continuing to drill is very bad for the environment and way too costly. I do not think the oil industry is honest with public about the amount of oil available or not all over the world at this time. The subsidies are used to partly keep this a mystery. I do believe that the peak is here or very close for them to be so adamantly persistent to drill in such expensive and environmentally unsafe conditions. Foreign oil to me is more appealing due to the lesser effects on the environment. Safe alternatives should be put into place as soon as possible due to rising cost and rising consumption of energy. The dependence on oil itself is contributing to the high cost of oil whether it be foreign oil or close. When the sources are low the cost will be high no matter where that oil comes from. When the oil is harder and more costly to drill along with the bad economy( will take more dollars than other currency to invest in the drilling) will make the price more than it already is. The price of drilling has a lot to do with the market and currency values also. This is one reason why countries with oil have so much power in congress.

A windmill on top of the car maybe? It might would take off slow, but the wind generated at full speed no telling how fast that might be able to get. Time has to be involved in how fast an object can go with whatever energy is used. Example it takes time for solar to heat up. This society is blessed to have a burst of seemingly immediate energy for everything. Is there some way we could slow down the speed of the portable energies we have today like dilute it? This would slow down the use also to create more time for fuels to catch up with the demand. This is hard to explain due to I am not a rocket scientist. I see two things that slow down energy consumption dilution and recycling. How to do that I would have to leave to scientist, because I do not have that knowledge. I am just a nurse and a mom. This is another reason why I am all for subsidies to scientist.

Katie I wonder a lot about that one. Where I live they do rolling blackouts randomly throughout the year for the reason to decrease the consumption due to the demand is too high and price would be too much. I do not think it is shortage but who knows. I do know the last rolling scheduled blackout, they blackout even the airport. It is very inconvenient to my job due to my patients are all on a machine cleaning their blood. When the power goes out we have to manually return their blood to them in the dark.




Conservation Of Resources Discussion

Critics of predictions based on “Peak Oil” Theory raise several issues that they contend will affect the production of oil. These include the use of petroleum substitutes (biofuels, for example), introduction of energy conservation technologies (hybrid cars), discovery of new reserves (opening the west bank of Greenland to oil exploration), and a more friendly climate among politicians and the public to oil producers (advocates of “drill baby drill”).

Describe one or two ways in which the US government subsidies might affect the rate of production for petroleum within the US. Should the US use tax dollars to increase subsidies and thereby encourage more oil exploration and petroleum production associated with new drilling technologies? Or might this be counter-productive and be detrimental to the energy industry overall? Explain your reasoning.

I think it would be detrimental to encourage more drilling and more oil exploration. I think the oil we have should be used at a slower rate. This is hard to slow the rate down when the world population is growing exponentially. I am very good with math and numbers and do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that we need alternatives to the oil industry. The problem with the alternatives are that none of the alternatives to date can possibly keep up with the demand of how much oil is currently being used or be as cheap as oil. So my solution is educate our youth and make science so interesting to them that they may discover better solutions that are safe. The only ways I see to slow the rate down are to increase prices of the oil and restrict drill baby drill. These are such hard decisions to make but when looking into the eyes of your children the decision is easier. Maybe my son can learn how to do something with nuclear fusion that we do not know about yet, or someone elses child. Maybe he can learn how to make a survivable ecosystem in outerspace. I give my son the internet and all the wealth of information I can afford. Books by the thousands I have bought for him. Money and subsidies should be given for experimental research in new technologies.

I think it would be detrimental to encourage more drilling and more oil exploration. I think the oil we have should be used at a slower rate. This is hard to slow the rate down when the world population is growing exponentially. I am very good with math and numbers and do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that we need alternatives to the oil industry. The problem with the alternatives are that none of the alternatives to date can possibly keep up with the demand of how much oil is currently being used or be as cheap as oil. So my solution is educate our youth and make science so interesting to them that they may discover better solutions that are safe. The only ways I see to slow the rate down are to increase prices of the oil and restrict drill baby drill. These are such hard decisions to make but when looking into the eyes of your children the decision is easier. Maybe my son can learn how to do something with nuclear fusion that we do not know about yet, or someone elses child. Maybe he can learn how to make a survivable ecosystem in outerspace. I give my son the internet and all the wealth of information I can afford. Books by the thousands I have bought for him. Money and subsidies should be given for experimental research in new technologies.

The hardest part of bringing a new idea foward is backing and funding. That is why the subsidies should go for innovation and new things not the old that are making profits already. If a company is making profits, they should not continue to get help.

This not only goes for new energy but other things as well. Its not that scientist have not discovered things to make life better for us like new medicines and things that can do more. It’s those things are hard to get because they are very expensive because a drug company has to fund all the testing then take a chance that it will work and be out millions if it doesn’t work..

My son had an idea that each country goes before the UN with ideas. The UN backs the idea and that scientist has X amount of years to find the cure or invention getting paid subsidies etc.; and all along the way, have to report to the UN showing progress in the idea. If they are not shown to make progress or nothing happens, then stop funding and fund a different scientist. Then after the invention or cure is found, the UN funds for it to be put into place. Every country involved in the UN gets the new invention or cure. The subsidies would be worldwide not just here because the planet is at stake not just our one little corner of it. This would make it fairer also because it would be not who you know that gets you the subsidy or the same ones getting it over and over. It would be picked from experts worldwide. Kinda like the IB high school diploma, my son’s homework is sent to other countries to be graded and is completely unbiased due to the grader has never met or seen my son at all. They do not know if he worked a little time on the project or a long time. They only judge the work on its own merit.

I believe they cannot ever get rid of the oil subsidies as long as we use oil. The subsidies help to make it a cheaper price at the pump when the reserves are being used waiting on fresh oil to start again. The price will climb the more reserves we use though. It must be this way also to not run out of oil all together. The subsidies also help those little countries that fight and go to war over the oil not to fight so much. It’s just a big mess. The best thing isfor us to find other energy sources. Leave what oil we have in the ground and find alternatives.

I used to work for a Senator that was also the owner of a oil company. He was chairman of the ways and means committee, chairman of the welfare committee, chairmen of the transportaion committee, etc….

With him having so much power he introduce laws to make it impossible to know what the oil company even does. The laws were passed to where nothing about his business can be publicly disclosed. If you try to even research this senator on the internet through wikapedia even you can not find information on what laws he even created or that he was even a senator. They do have much power. It is almost scary. I will just say the state is Arkansas.

Yes he used his power as a senator to introduce his legislation because he was the chairman of the committee that decides what bills get to be even discussed. If he does not want to discuss a bill it won’t even get mentioned, but you can bet your bottom dollar anything he wanted discussed was discussed. I was his personal secretary and seen first-hand how the system works for one very powerful senator. It is all in what you can do for the next person. And the person with the power they want to give everything too and the people that give get more. I seen first-hand letters filed in his personal senator files.. Letters of can you please get me the position of prosecuting attorney??? And yes that person that wrote and asked this of him was the prosecuting attorney. Is not this job an elected position?

This employment position of mine discouraged me from ever voting in my life.



Conservation of Resources Discussion

The world’s average population growth rate for 2008 was approximately 1.7%, compared to a US growth rate of 0.9%. However, the natural resource consumption rate per capita for US citizens was five times greater than the average person in the developing world.

Encouraged by the UN, many developing countries promote population management by taxing families with children to reduce populations. China’s “One Child Policy” is a good example. They criticize the US, Europe, and Japan as populations with high consumption rates that give families tax incentives for having children. The US response is that high worker productivity necessitates high consumption. It takes consumption to make production.

So, what do you think? Should the US continue to offer Federal Income Tax Deductions for more than two children when Americans have such high natural resource consumption rates? Explain your answer.

RE: Tax Incentives to help conservation

Schreiner, Lori



Business’s that go paperless should get tax benefit. Bus tickets should be tax deductible. For every new business that cuts a tree down to build should plant a tree elsewhere. Census should be done of abandoned homes and incentives given to states with less than 2% empty homes this includes apartments, trailers rentals, anything considered a home. If there are empty commercial buildings, permits to build more commercial buildings should be denied. Any empty building that is not energy efficient with guidelines set should be torn down allowing a permit to be available for new building that is energy efficient.

I think with the growth rate so much a tax reduction for not having a child would be immoral. The earned income credit for poor wage earners has been capped at 2 dependents since the beginning of the income credit. I think that it has deterred some into having less children. Most families cannot afford more than 2 children due to the cost of living. Me personally love my two children dearly and could never put a price on them. If I made a billion dollars a year would not be as much as the love I have for my children. I am adopted and do not know my biological family at all. My two children are my only heritage and are priceless.

My children are all I have with my DNA. My son only has me 3 uncles a sister and a dad. I do not know where the dad and three uncles are even at. So yes to me my heritage would die out without my children.

My daughter’s dad was paralyzed from the waist down in an auto wreck when she was only three year’s old. She is his only child and will never have another. He only has a sister so his name is over with Vison pedigree line with my daughter boom vanished when she marries. So yes it is very important to him also.

I am more concerned about the DNA(heritage) than the pedigree{name). But this is just my personality. I am saying with the tax bracket with the earned income credit they evened it out with the rich. The poor can only have two children and can afford to live. The middleclass can only have two children and afford to live. That in turn makes the population less because everyone mainly has only two children. The ones that do the invetro and everything are blessed to be able to afford this luxury, or sacrifice way more than those that have only two children.

I am saying that there is a decrease in the population growth of the US. The income tax credit made it for all income levels to not be able to afford more than two children therefore decreasing the population growth rate. So this worked it accomplished what it was set out to do. You can only get a decrease not extinction to be moral. It can only slow down not stop completely. So what is next? More space exploration would be great in my opinion. What other options do we have? This planet is only so big. My son is interested in learning how to make an ecosystem survive in outer space. The children are our future not vice versus.




Conservation of Resources discussion

Go Navigate:     All posts Unread Read My posts Replies to my posts Draft Flagged With attachments      Reply    Print  Email author     Mark as read

[-] Directions :

Supply Vs. Demand  –Schreiner, Lori4/18/20120

The Law of Supply and Demand is at the heart of Free Market practices. Allowing markets to work with minimal government interference is an important staple of American politics. Markets can create serious problems when unattended.

Based on your assigned reading and what you come across on the Internet, briefly describe the “Law of Supply of Demand.” What are the weaknesses from an environmental perspective? Describe how these weaknesses might be addressed.

The law of supply and demand is what allows the free market to determine price.  The more supply is available of a product the less the demand and the cheaper the price.  The less supply of a product the more demand there is increasing the price.  When a lot of people are buying a product the price goes down.  The company makes lots and lots of the product.  When the people become stationed satisfied with that whim, fad or whatever reason wanting the product, the company can sell cheap an overabundance of supply.  Stores will offer discounts etc….  Then the maker slows making the product and increases the price to continue making a profit and covering the cost of manufacture.  This will continue until the consumer must buy direct from the manufacturer for an expensive price.  Then if the request of the product becomes great or need great again the manufacturer may start making a lot of this product again. It is a continuous cycle. 

The major problem with this, from an environmental perspective is that everything made comes from resources.  If these resources become scarce, the price is going to continue to climb until no one can afford anything.   Then the owners of the resources stockpile the resources to let it build back up.  The people do not understand the reasoning behind this become angry, and sometimes wars can be started over the resources.  The population growth compounds this problem.

The best way I see to address the issue is to conserve resources, give to others that do not have much, fair trades between nations with these resources and educate our youth from a young age to conserve.


  1. law of supply and demand. (n.d.) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003). Retrieved April 18 2012 from

Plastic of all kinds is made from oil. We live in a plastic world. There are way many things besides fuel that are made out of oil.

I think no one should be able to collect all the natural resources to sell. Only be able to sell what is made from the resources and then must be able to recycle what is made. Eventually as the population increases more and more rapidly the resources will be gone. Also there needs to be inventors finding ways to replenish resources faster. The only thing with that is it might mess with natural order of the universe or something. It might change the weather more rapidly or more storms, etc. What ever is decided needs to start now and be very careful.

Conservation of Resources-Rasmussen College

Why do scientists and educators find it difficult to be precise when declaring a resource as “renewable”?

Renewable Resources


A renewable resource is a resource that can be replenished naturally with the passage of time. [1]


Scientists and educators find it difficult to be precise when declaring a resource as “renewable” because the future is unknown for certain.  Drought could cause lakes and rivers to dry up.  Clouds could cover the sun for days.  Also the demand for the supply could be too much.  All the trees used up before more can be planted.

The growing population growth has no limits on how much resource is going to be needed or used.  This makes an exact science of what is going to happen with a renewable resource impossible to be exact.  It is easy to say although, that the sun will be around for as long as the planet is here and people are alive.  The sun would be the best source of energy.


  1. renewable resource. (n.d.) WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. (2003-2008). Retrieved May 16 2012 from

Advanced Composition Rasmussen College

Analysis of: Losing Our Country, by Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman shares ideas of how the middle-class is disappearing into poverty mentioning baby boomers, war, and greedy politicians taking on a liberal left perspective; however there is no consideration at all of the middle class disappearance related to population growth, pollution, and  dwindling natural resources.  In the first sentence, Krugman mentions “Baby boomers like me grew up in a relatively equal society”. What happens when the baby boomers hit adulthood?  Extreme adult population growth has hit the workforce. More jobs are needed to be created for the influx of people in the workforce.  Krugman mentions the fact that working families have not had progress in income but fails to include that population of workforce has to compete with the same money that a few years back had less people.

This growth of workers in the workforce creates a balance for a time due to more collegiate experts are needed to teach the younger ones new ideas and trades to compete with the ever-growing population.

“Median income doubled between 1947 and 1973……rose only 22 percent from 1973 to 2003” (Rosenwasser, Stephen, 2012, p.687)

Now to cut the pie of money with the baby boomer parents the income levels have to dwindle for the excess amount of people. To do this, the income rates decrease; while the cost of supplies increase. The cost of living (inflation) rises related to natural resources being used exponentially along with exponential population growth.  Next the baby boomers are having babies, and the population soars higher.  Demand is high for everything at the store. Factories cannot keep up with making products fast enough for the consumers to purchase the goods.  When demand is high price goes up.

I worked in a factory in the 1990’s. This era saw collapse of the textile industries in this country.  As the pre-stock employee in the inspector department, I was responsible for locating inventory already sold.  Our company could not keep up with making the rugs fast enough for the customers’ purchases. We lost customers due to they would go elsewhere where product could be gained faster.  This factory closed shop with many others in this country and went to other countries.

All the increased factories, increased fossil fuel usage, and increased consumption related to extreme population growth has now created pollution to the extreme.  Health declines, cancer is on the rise along with heart and lung disease.  Diabetes and kidney failure is growing exponentially.  The healthcare industry is rising exponentially due to all the sickness and extreme population of elderly baby boomers. More and more healthcare workers are needed along with more medications. The demand for medicines is increasing rapidly causing spikes in the price of medications. When demand is high, price is high.  The supply can’t keep up with the demand of the flu vaccination.  How many times has there been a shortage of vaccinations?

Along with the increased pollution causing healthcare issues, the elderly population has risen.  The baby boomers have reached old age.  Cost of healthcare for elderly is expensive due to declining health as a person ages. Demand is high for healthcare. When demand is high cost is high.  The workers in the healthcare are competing for the same money that was for fewer workers a decade ago.  The cost of the supplies is increasing exponentially along with the stagnant wages. All of these things increase anger, frustration, stress, fear, increasing need for psychiatric care.

It is ironic when Krugman mentions in the first sentence that the baby boomer era was the ideal era of equality when the baby boomer(exponential population growth) is the reason behind many problems discussed by him.  Inflation, low wages, and increase between poor and rich salaries are all related to population growth, pollution, decreased resources, high demand and decreased supply.  If wages were not kept stagnant, there would be a bigger gap between the rich and the poor; because there would not possibly be enough jobs for as many as we have at the moment. An employer has X amount of money and can only hire X amount of employees for X amount of money to keep the business alive. To break even, the employer has to cap the wages.  The cost of supplies is increasing rapidly due to demand is increasing. Furthermore, to make a profit the employer must hire more workers to gain incentives set by government (incentives set to keep financial collapse happening in drastic proportion). To hire more employees, it is impossible to give raises = to the cost of inflation, because two employees cost double what one employee cost. I think Krugman looks at the surface but not the whole economic situation.  On the surface, it is easy to assume politicians are only greedy and that is driving wages stagnant and inflation higher.  In reality, the stagnation stems from increase population growth.  This stagnation has kept this country from losing everything. It has prevented a total collapse.


  1. D. Rosenwasser, J. Stephen.(2012). Writing analytically, second edition. Wadsworth.  P. Krugman. “Losing Our Country”. Pages 687-688.
%d bloggers like this: