My distinguished colleague, Alan, will have to forgive my hurried critique on his blog stage seven article. Perhaps his forgiveness will be more forthcoming than it might otherwise have been had he not hurried through this assignment himself!
I make this assumption based on the rampant typographical and grammatical errors that permeate his text. One fairly obvious instance of hurry appears in the first non-interrogative sentence in his post - the fourth overall - in which he refers to "an unanimous vote of 38-24." As my colleague is in fact a college student, and must presumably know the definition of this word, I can only conclude that this was a rush job. He does, however, seem to have done some research to support his stance - with which, incidentally, I concur - for his post contains links to sites supporting some of his claims of fact, which lends him far more credibility than if he had not linked at all.
In summation, some light proofreading and editing would serve my colleague well in his blogging endeavors, for, despite the clear fact that his chosen medium is in this case inherently forgiving of typographical and other errors occurring naturally during spontaneous composition, this post suffers from appearing too off-the-cuff, and would be better received, in the opinion of this critic, were it more carefully constructed.
United States President Barack Obama spokeyesterday in Oslo at the ceremony at which he was presented the Nobel Peace Prize. With what must come to be called characteristic class, he referenced deftly the ugly actions of recent America, while pointing out that which continues to be justifiable. He challenged the nations of the Earth to stand up to injustice, and to hold violators of what we all recognize to be human rights accountable. He called for citizens of the world to band together in enlightened self-interest to help secure a better future for our progeny.
He called for clarity regarding use of force, reminded his audience that violence has been a fact since the dawn of man, putting things into perspective, context. The faces of many in the audience echoed my own at moments when I feared the President may have misstepped. There were members of the audience whose egos were not broken, who were not sold on the ideas presented. I hope that some of these people will see footage of themselves and be compelled to examine themselves and their beliefs. I do not claim that they are mistaken, only that, by the looks of their eyes, they may do well to spend some hours in quiet reflection.
"Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth." (Obama, Dec. 10, 2009)
This was an excellent speech, the kind of art that begs repeat engagement. History will judge whether it was a milestone in the journey of a great man, the blunderings of a man ill-equipped to deal with the challenges presented him, or someone of less note. Personally, I saw a man, doing the best he can, holding himself to the highest standard he can manage, challenging himself constantly to grow, learning, gaining in stamina, strengthening the muscles of integrity and discipline as he attempts fully to utilize the resources with which he has been provided. I see a man of high caliber working diligently. What do you see?
My young colleague, Veronica, recently published a blog addressing climate change. Her post acknowledges climate change, refers to several facets thereof, commends companies for going green, and calls readers to action today. This is all very good. However, a few simple procedures could take this post to the next level.
In the first paragraph, the author ambiguously refers to money spent by companies in automotive and other industries on 'green' improvements as evidence that people are committed. I think this would be a much more effective paragraph if it cited, or at least linked to, specific examples of how automobile manufacturers are investing in 'green' research, surveys or statistics about consumer preference for 'green' products, etc.
The third paragraph emphasizes that global warming is here causing real consequences, one of which was actually stated backwards. (Ocean levels are rising, not sinking.) Also, elevated temperatures during the summer, even record temperatures and such, do not PROVE things. They provide evidence. As legend-in-his-own time scientist and thinker Freeman Dyson will attest, proving things within such complex and poorly understood systems as the global ecosphere can prove exceptionally difficult. My point is this: the fact that global warming is practically indisputable at this point is no excuse for sloppy reporting.
In short, while I generally agree with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, I felt they could have been presented more clearly and with documentation.