Reuse Everything....Seriously....EVERYTHING

1. Semrau's point of reusing becomes apparent when he writes, "Quite simply, use what you have until it can no longer function."
2. Semrau's intent for this essay is to show readers that there are many resources that can be reused, not just materials such as paper and plastic. While it is important to reuse these materials, he is trying to say that there are other ways to be "green". What we don’t know at the beginning of the essay is that Semrau is practicing the concept of reusing by donating his body to science. He intentionally leaves out this information until the end and by doing so, he more effectively demonstrates the intent of the essay. When he first begins talking about reusing, thoughts of conventional methods of reusing may come to mind. When he starts talking about fulfilling his dream of going to medical school, the reader may wonder how Semrau could practice reusing in this scenario. And finally, when he reveals that he is donating his body to science for Harvard Medical School, the reader understands the very unconventional way in which he is reusing his resources. By not revealing this information until the close of the essay, he helps the reader think more about reusing and more readily understand that there are very unconventional but beneficial ways to reuse.

Savior of the Nations, Come

When reading the hymn, "Savior of the Nations, Come" a central theme is presented throughout: The Lord sent his Son to earth as a baby boy, who would conquer sin and death for all creation. To demonstrate this theme, Luther discusses the purity of our Lord Jesus Christ, being born of a virgin and by the Holy Spirit. Luther also further emphasizes the theme by writing of how Jesus was persecuted during his time on earth, but succeeded death and reigns on high in heaven despite that. Luther includes that we should refrain from sin and stay faithful by focusing on the manger scene and that we should praise God for the gift of his Son.
Luther uses the literary tool of diction in order to show how Jesus Christ conquered death and eternal suffering in hell. In the fourth and fifth stanzas, Luther includes words like "triumph" and "victory." He could have used words such as success or accomplish but these words would not have been nearly as effective to convey the crucially important theme. The choice words "triumph" and "victory" help readers further understand Jesus' never-ending power that ultimately defeated our eternal death and separation from Him forever.

Sinners in the Hands of Angry or Loving God?

1. Reverend Borghardt referenced Christ about 35 times during his sermon. Of those 35 times, Christ was the subject of the verb about 25 times. Some of the verbs he used to describe Jesus' actions were "makes holy", "sets apart", "was slain", "took on our sin and death", "died for us", "lives again", "rose and reigns on the throne", "puts on and still wears our flesh and blood", "makes us alive", "puts his name on us", "wants us and got us", "came to us", and "made blessings for us", among others.

2. The theme‘s of Edwards and Borghardt‘s sermons differ greatly. Edwards preaches that all should live in fear of God’s angry wrath and punishment for our sins. He says that God could throw us into hell at any moment in time. He emphasizes that God detests us and has no mercy on any sinner. Borghardt, on the other hand, preaches that God smiles at us because of Christ’s death for our sins and the spiritual cleansing that comes from that sacrifice. He says that we shouldn’t fear God because he loves us and calls us home to heaven when we die.

Law Banning Items From Rearview Mirrors Being Rethought

      The title of this article, "Law banning items from rearview mirrors is being rethought", is pretty self-explanatory. Helms states that in Michigan there is a law banning all items that people hang from their rearview mirrors. This law isn’t widely known and police officers rarely enforce it. Most people believe that dangling items from their rearviews is acceptable as long as it isn't obstructing their view. New legislation is being considered to allow drivers to hang small items but still prohibit ones that would block their view. However, the bill doesn’t specify how big or small the items can be and police would have the arbitrary power of when to pull people over.
      Helms quotes Detroiter John Ortiz, “’Some things are gaudy, and I could understand banning that, but this air freshener doesn’t distract my view.’” This quote stuck out to me because I think it really demonstrates how pointless the current ban is. John Ortiz disagrees with the ban as do I. The current ban is not necessary and the new bill that softens the ban should be enough to avoid any problems. While the new bill doesn’t specify what sized items are allowed, I believe Michigan drivers will have the common sense to discern which items will be acceptable and which ones will be a danger to their driving. Also, while it will give police arbitrary power to pull people over, the same thing is true now with the current ban. Senator Ron Jelinek said about the current ban, “’I call it a ‘gotcha’ law. It’s an excuse to pull someone over.’” However, if the new bill is passed, police will have less of an excuse to pull driver’s over as more items will be allowed to hang from rearview mirrors. The current ban is impractical and should be replaced by the new legislation in consideration.

Own Up, LeBron

Throughout the column, It's not race, LeBron James, but it might be you, Mitch Albom scrutinizes not only the question Soledad O’Brien posed to LeBron, but also his response to the controversial question. Soledad asked if his race was in any way involved in all the criticism that was being fired on him amidst the way he handled his free-agency. LeBron answered, “’I think so at times. It’s always, you know, a race factor.’” Albom found it ridiculous that this question was even brought up. He pointed out that when LeBron was interviewed for his successes, there was no suggestion of it being a so-called “race factor”. He was just a great athlete in these instances. However, LeBron’s popularity went down significantly after the way he handled his free-agency. Albom proposes that it was his building ego, not his race, that caused this.
I, without a doubt, agree with Albom’s point of view. I observe this happening often in our society today. People pull the race card out of their back pockets to get themselves out of trouble and unfortunately, journalists and reporters endorse it by asking the question all too often. LeBron should have realized that he (heaven forbid) actually deserved all of the criticism he received. The egotistical comment he made on television was enough to make people not think very highly of him. He remarked, “’I’m gonna take my talents to South Beach.’”, implying that it was all about how great he is. When he was doing well in his career, nobody said “Oh, he’s only good because he’s black.” But of course, when he messes up, he thinks people stop praising him as an athlete because of his race when he needs to realize that his insurmountable ego is to blame.
Albom really proved his point when he compared the incident surrounding LeBron with Brett Favre’s retreat from Green Bay. When Favre left the Packers his mounting ego was revealed because “ego knows no color“, as Albom states, but did anybody ask Favre about race? Absolutely not. This should have been the case with LeBron as well. By sharing this, Albom points out that if nobody asks the question, people would not have the option of grabbing “race as a parachute to safety.” All of this goes to show the lack of responsibility that most people, not only African-Americans, succumb to.