Jessica Contreras




May31, 2016

Readerresponse #2



StephenGlass is an ambitious 25-year-old writer. The writer works at TheNew Republic magazine.One of his goals is to give his articles some excitement. Hetherefore, adds some twist to his stories to attract the readers.Everybody loves Stephen’s articles, and they always make the firstpage on the cover magazine. The celebrated writer inspires manypeople who end up loving him. However, Stephen at times lets thereaders down. Some details and quotes in his articles are made up tofabricate a story (Bissingern. p).I am Charles Lane, the editor of TheNew Republic,and it is sad to inform you that Stephen should be fired because ofhis many fabricated articles. Stephen has lied to many peopleincluding those who admire him, and in the process, he has hurt themagazine’s reputation.

Ameeting was held between the article writer and Adam Penenberg, areporter from Forbesmagazine. He was asked about his resources including the informationabout the phone numbers with only one line, how he got in touch witheveryone, the emails, and the amateur AOLweb pages for big software companies. The author got nervous, and hisanswer gave me doubts about an article he wrote concerning HackHeaven (Bissingern. p).Ian Restile, a 15-year-old computer hacker throws a tantrum anddemands money, a Miata, a trip to Disney World, X-Men comic booknumber one, a lifetime subscription to Playboy, and a penthouse. Theexecutives from a California software firm – Jukt Micronics listen tohim and try to oblige. One of them interrupts and promises that theywill arrange more money for him. In the article, Stephen took a ridewith me to the Hyatt hotel, where the conference was supposedly held.However, the place was too small to hold that large number of people,and the security officer said it was closed on that day. Across thestreet, the restaurant Stephen alleged they ate from, was also closedearly and hence, brought more doubt to his article. Stephen admittedthat he had made up many of the stories, and kept saying sorry to me.He lied by making fake business cards, created a fake website, andhad the brother pose as the Jukt Micronics owner.

Stephenis a liar and had everyone fooled. He said what people wanted tohear. Lindsay was one of Stephen‘s close friends at TheNew Republic.The co-workers asked Stephen for help concerning their articles, andhe gave them compliments. Stephen told them that they should knowwhom they were writing for (Bissingern. p).His co-workers backed him up until when they found out the truth.They felt betrayed and started wondering what else Stephen had lied.

TheNew Republicfound out that at least twenty-seven out of forty-one of Stephen’sarticles had false material. Some of them like Don’tYou Dare, All Wet, Gift of the Magnet,and KickedOutcontained both facts and fiction. These hurt the reputation of thecompany. Its reading went down, and all the articles written byStephen were closely proofread to separate facts from fiction, whichis time-consuming. To earn back people’s trust, every writer wrotean apology letter to their readers.

Stephen’sreputation went skyrocket due to the articles he wrote for TheNew Republicmagazine. He brought laughter to his readers and coworkers. However,it was not right to make up stories. All the people who previouslythought highly of Stephen now felt sorry for him. He should bepunished for all the lies, be fired for the fabricated stories, andfor hurting the magazine’s reputation.


Bissinger,Buzz. &quotShattered Glass&quot.&nbspVanity Fair. N.p.,1998. Web. 19 June 2016.

Contreras 2




June09, 2016


Whatcould be more beautiful than to live in a world that is full of theproduce of the land and we never lose a single life to hunger?Indeed, there is nothing more important than that. Our nations havebecome too busy establishing dominance such that we have forgottenthe natural law that matters that of sisterhood and brotherhood.Today, most of the financial resources and energy are dedicated tothe development of powerful weaponry and armies. Just take a look atany country’s defense budget and compare it to the amount that hasbeen set aside for agriculture and its research there are slimchances that agriculture’s budget will ever surpass that ofdefense. One wonders whether we are waiting for a war to break out.While all this is happening, according to World Food Programme 3.1million children below five years die each year because of hunger andpoor nutrition (Babu, Gajanan, and Sanyal 18). Thus, despite manyworld hunger eradication forums little has been done on the ground tofight this menace and more people continue to die out of it.

` We have been blessed with technology that makes our worldbetter, what we could not do 50years ago, today we can. We havebetter transport systems, which allow us to transport food easily notonly from harvest farms, but to the needy. Moreover, technology hasallowed us to develop sophisticated food silos that are used to storegrains and preservation hubs for perishables. Furthermore, researchhas proven that different soils react differently to crops. Thus, itis easier for scientists to advise people on what commodities thatwill be viable in a particular field. This information has allowedscientists to develop fertilizers and seeds, which react well withsoils. Also, it has been discovered that greenhouses can produce somuch food that is not affected by season. It is sad to look at whatour world has become today with all this technology at our disposal.The hunger problem that has been immortalized is entirely solvablebecause there is already enough food in the world. What is needed tosolve this problem, are today’s tools, knowledge, and policiescoupled with political will.

Thelands which should be dedicated for the purpose of hunger eradicationhave either been devoted to profitable ventures or othernon-important issues. This can be supported by Rifkin in hisarticle quoted in One World, Many Cultures, he states that the USAhas dedicated so much attention to beef farming that it has forgottenabout the hunger crisis.

“Thebeef addiction of the U.S and other industrialized nations has alsocontributed to the global food crisis. Cattle and other livestockconsume more than 71% of the grain produced in the U.S and about athird of the world’s total grain harvest-while nearly a billionpeople suffer from chronic under nutrition. If the U.S lands now usedto grow livestock feeds were converted to grow grain for humanconsumption, we could feed an additional 400 million people” ( Hirschberg and Hirschberg 360)

Thefact that we are feeding our livestock with more than 71% of thegrain we produce shows how we have become a profit-oriented nation.He adds that despite all those facts, the government continues topursue policies that support livestock rearing at the expense ofhunger eradication. It is evident from Rifkin’s statement that hecriticizes the government due to its inability to prioritize hungerissues, yet you will see, read or hear in the media channels that theworld leaders met and not just once, to deliberate on the way forwardon how to eradicate hunger. Solutions have been proposed in thesemeetings, but at the implementation level, nothing to be proud of.

Also,when we analyze the budget allocation of U.S and U.K, you will seethat there is a lack of political will to promote agriculturalactivities. In 2016, according to the U.S Department of Defense, $585billion was allocated to them that is a lot of money compared to$148 billion, which was allocated to agriculture according to therecords of USDA (1). On the other hand, according to the U.K Ministryof Defense and Michael, 35.1 billion euros were allocated to defensewhile 24 billion euros were allocated to agriculture, housing andemployment. This just shows how agriculture is another item in thebudget. These two nations are more conscious on military power thanagriculture, and they reflect what is happening in other nations. Itis thus difficult to eradicate hunger when those in power find itlogical to overlook the issue. If the nations of the world dedicatedhalf of their resources and energy as they did in defense, trust me,hunger would be a history lesson taught in schools. Imagine if youhad an extended family, would you dedicate your resources to havingthe most secure locks, doors, windows and security systems, whilesome of your family members were malnourished or hunger stricken?Probably not we are human beings with the power to have empathy forour neighbors and family members. How then is this not reflectedworldwide? Our world should be guided by hope, faith, and love, forwhere these three abide, true political spirit will always prevail.

Leadershave a great responsibility towards formulating policies thateradicate hunger. Peace is one of the important policies that shouldbe ensured in order to have prosperity and a free hunger world, andthere is only one nation that is fighting to ensure that, the U.S. Ifeel that the rest of world leaders are failing U.S. Let’s reviewthe history of the U.S and its role in ensuring peace. The U.S wasresponsible for stopping Hitler’s dominance or victory, it alsoparticipated in the Vietnam War, and though many lives were lost, weshould not forget why we went to that war. Also, U.S has beensubstantial in helping citizens fight terror groups they have foughtal Qaeda, the Saddam Hussein regime, and they are still fighting tohelp Syria and Iraq regain their lands. One wonders why U.S is theonly country that is active in these missions while it is not thesame with China, U.K, Germany, and Russia among others. These nationsare great and have the resources and manpower to do so, yet they allwatch as U.S battles these insurgents. Imagine if it was a jointeffort, could we not have achieved more?

Itis quite discouraging when leaders perpetrate actions which make itdifficult for farming to thrive. In Africa, most countries importfoods which they can easily produce in their farms because those whocontrol these businesses are people in political position, and theywould lose a lot of revenue if their countries could produce thesefoods locally thus, they thwart any effort that would promotefarming (House-Soremekun and Falola 100). Farming cannot thrive ifpeace does not prevail, democracy is essential for conducive farming.Many countries in the Middle East and Africa know not the meaning ofdemocracy and as a result, there is little peace and time for farmingas people are always in war and clashes. The irresponsibility ofthese leaders has resulted in more impediments to hunger eradicationand ironically their countries are the ones who are in dire need offood (House-Soremekun and Falola 100). Also, our world lacks selflessleaders who would put the interest of the world than theirs.

Furthermore,as individuals, we have failed. In the world today, very few peoplepursue farming as their career choice. We are seeking white collarjobs, and we do our best to laugh at those who would pursue farmingas a career. Where does that leave the world whose people arestarving?


Thus,it is true that we are giving agriculture minimal attention atpersonal, national and international levels. As individuals we arerunning away from ventures or careers related to food productionlikewise, our leaders lack the political will to fight hungerproblems. Corruption, embezzlement of funds and lack of clear definedpriorities have marred the governance of most countries.Consequently, with all that being reflected in our leaders, who wetrust to guide us out of the problem, we just end up having a lot ofhungry people and increased mortality rates.


Babu,Suresh C, Shailendra N. Gajanan, and Prabuddha Sanyal.&nbspFoodSecurity, Poverty and Nutrition Policy Analysis: Statistical Methodsand Applications.2nd&nbsped. Waltham: Academic press,&nbsp2014. Print.

TheBook of Babu, Gajanan and Sanyal show how our world has been marredby food insecurity. They support they argument with World FoodProgramme data which I found it useful in my essay. I used they factto support my argument. They book is factual thus representing aobjective point of argument.

Hirschberg,Stuart, and Terry Hirschberg.&nbspOneWorld, Many Cultures.7th&nbsped. New York: Pearson Longman,&nbsp2009. Print.

Thebook of Hirschbergs’ is a geopolitical book that has articles ofglobal issues that are considered important. The book was useful insupporting my argument how the world has prioritized issues which arenot important. The Rikfin’s article was quoted in this book showingevidence that the grain feed to livestock in USA could fee 400million people. This article gives my essay command and helps medevelop my argument.

House-Soremekun,Bessie, and Toyin Falola.&nbspGlobalizationand Sustainable Development in Africa.1sted. Rochester: U of Rochester P,&nbsp2011. Print.

Thisbook helped me to express how bad governance, corruption andself-centeredness of leaders has resulted to more impediments toeradicate hunger.

Ministryof Defense, and Fallon Michael. &quotDefence Budget Increases forthe First Time in Six Years – News Stories – GOV.UK.&quot&nbspWelcometo GOV.UK.U.K, 1&nbspApr.&nbsp2016. Web. 15&nbspJune&nbsp2016.&lt

Iused the records from this website first because I knew they would betruthful. Also to get the facts and budget figures in order to provethat government dedicates more resource to military than agriculture

U.SDepartment of Defense. &quotDepartment of Defense.&quot&nbspDepartmentof Defense.Department of Defense, n.d. Web. 15&nbspJune&nbsp2016.&lt

Iused the records from this website first because I knew they would betruthful. Also to get the facts and budget figures in order to provethat government dedicates more resource to military than agriculture.The two defense budgets of UK and US were used to reflection what ourgovernments prioritize.

UnitedStates Department of Agriculture. &quotBUDGET SUMMARY AND ANNUALPERFORMANCE PLAN.&quot&nbspFY2016&nbsp&nbsp(2016):1-132. Web. 14&nbspJune&nbsp2016.&lt

Theinformation from this article provided me with budget figures which Icould compare with those of defense in order to prove that less moneyis dedicated to agriculture. The facts in these records helped me toshow that governments are not serious in eradicating hunger butshowing military superiority.