http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sports/football/for-the-nfl-a-question-of-hazing-or-abuse.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp
Where is the line of taking pranks too far in this type of environment? What kind of action should be taken against an NFL "bully"? Who is responsible? The player? The team? The league?

I thought that this article was a bit longer than it needed to be, I found most of it surprisingly entertaining. The long description of polynomials in her algebra homework did not serve much of a purpose and took away from the fun of the article, which in my opinion was the writers dispute with the teachers and parents. Had he elaborated on an incident when they were living in Brentwood and he a had an email dialogue that ended in him going to the principals office for "cyberbullying". It seemed funny that a school would accuse a parent of this, and I would have liked to hear more. The writer was funny throughout the whole piece, and I think that he could of elaborated on that event in a funny way. I agree with James that him talking about smoking pot at the end makes you question his ethics, but I thought it was an odd and comical way to finish the piece.

I found the idea of a floating array to help clean up these garbage patches to be one of the more intriguing ideas. Like global warming, the garbage patches seem like a problem that will only grow larger if not fixed now. I think that natural predators probably wouldn't have much involvement with it, being that it is floating on the surface and sharks are would be deeper. The thing that left me wondering was how would they be able to make booms big enough to collect an amount of trash that would significantly reduce the size of the gyres, considering the size (twice as big as the United States). Also, if the trash were to be collected, what would be the most effective way to remove if from the water. Would ships have to come in and empty the booms of trash and bring it back to put in landfills? That process seems very energy and cost consuming. If there were a way to break down or dissolve the plastic in the booms or the "manta ray shaped" devices, this could be a very efficient solution.

This article was filled with very valid points from both sides, but at the end of the day I have to agree with Keller. Impartial journalism is and has been the standard for accurate journalism in our country. Impartial journalism gives less leeway to include purely the authors preference of details and evidence, and more successfully captures the event as a whole, not a perspective on it. When the facts are presented, it is up to the reader to apply their own opinion. That being said, I found many of Greenwalds criticisms of journalism, the New York Times in particular, very interesting. Greenwald claimed that papers like the N.Y.T. support the elite classes and are looking to protect Washington. If, as Greenwald says, the N.Y.T. really did hold back a year to report the N.S.A. scandal and reported George W. Bush's false claim of weapons in Iraq, Greenwald has a point. However, at the end of the day the type of opinionated reporting that Greenwald supports is what endures the most criticism today.