In this speech Roosevelt termed, for the first time, journalists as muckrakers. Muck-rake- n. A rake for scraping up muck or dung

Muckrake- v. To search out and publicly expose real or apparent misconduct of a prominent individual or business

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 1906

In Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward, with the muck-rake in his hand; who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.

In Pilgrim's Progress the Man with the Muck-rake is set forth as the example of him whose vision is fixed on carnal instead of on spiritual things. Yet he also typifies the man who in this life consistently refuses to see aught that is lofty, and fixes his eyes with solemn intentness only on that which is vile and debasing. Now, it is very necessary that we should not flinch from seeing what is vile and debasing. There is filth on the floor and it must be scraped up with the muck-rake; and there are times and places where this service is the most needed of all the services that can be performed. But the man who never does anything else, who never thinks or speaks or writes, save of his feats with the muck-rake, speedily becomes, not a help to society, not an incitement to good, but one of the most potent forces for evil.

There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful. . . To assail the great and admitted evils of our political and industrial life with such crude and sweeping generalizations as to include decent men in the general condemnation means the searing of the public conscience. There results a general attitude either of cynical belief in and indifference to public corruption or else of a distrustful inability to discriminate between the good and the bad. Either attitude is fraught with untold damage to the country as a whole. The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well-nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad. There is nothing more distressing to every good patriot, to every good American, than the hard, scoffing spirit which treats the allegation of dishonesty in a public man as a cause for laughter. Such laughter is worse than the crackling of thorns under a pot, for it denotes not merely the vacant mind, but the heart in which high emotions have been choked before they could grow to fruition.

What was Roosevelt warning against in these sentences?

I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful. . . (5 points)

Falsely accusing people of evil practices
Writing too passionately on certain topics
Telling the truth will lead to retaliation
Forgetting that journalism is very powerful

Monsters of the deep the ocean is full of mysteries and amazing creatures. since the first sailors left their home shores and set off for adventure, stories have been told of the strange and wondrous beasts encountered on the open ocean. with only glimpses and imagination-enhanced stories to go on, humans have made many an interesting creature into a monster. the truth is, the ocean's scariest creatures inhabit such extreme depths that humans are rarely, if ever, threatened by them. that does not mean they are not the stuff of nightmares. consider, if you will, the following frightful fiends. atlantic hagfish part eel, part sea snake, this sea serpent may have inspired many stories. lacking the scales that most fish have, the hagfish secretes the most amazing slime to protect itself. this slime may be used to suffocate predators. the slime includes small fibers that make it almost impossible to remove. but the hagfish's truly horrific nature lies in what it does to its prey, not its predators. with an excellent sense of smell that compensates for almost total blindness, the hagfish will locate and latch on to a victim. with a circle of razor sharp teeth, the hagfish bores a hole into the side of its now-doomed prey. once the hole is complete, the hagfish just welcomes itself inside for a meal of fish innards. it essentially eats its prey from the inside out. like other deep-sea monsters, however, hagfish are seldom a nuisance to humans. they live most of their lives at depths of up to 5,600 feet. in fact, they prefer a soft sea bottom so they can quickly bury themselves to hide from threats. gulper eel another, more hideous, fiend of the deep is the gulper eel. this creepy critter is part eel and part giant pouch. like a pelican's enormous pouch-shaped mouth, the mouth of the gulper eel can open quite wide to gulp prey. it has a long tail tipped with a glowing organ that is used to lure in prey. in part to its tail, the gulper can reach up to six feet in length. because its tail is so thin, it is not able to pursue prey with any speed, but it can scoop up hundreds of small crustaceans or shrimp in one bite. often swimming through these prey groups with its mouth wide open, its large jaws allow it to feed on squid and other creatures much larger than itself. gulper eels have only been studied because they sometimes get caught in the nets of fishermen. the depths they inhabit make it quite difficult for scientists to study them. they can go as deep as 6,000 feet, well beyond the abilities of humans to pursue them. vampire squid perhaps the most frightening of the deep-sea monsters is also the smallest. the vampire squid reaches lengths of only six inches. it is also one of the most ancient of the deep-sea monsters. scientists believe it to be the last surviving member of its order. to see the vampire squid is to wonder how many kinds of sea creatures have been mashed into this one odd-looking spook. part squid, part octopus, and part fish, the vampire squid has features of all of these. first, it has large fins at the top of its head that look like ears. flapping like dumbo, the squid uses these fins to get around. it also has tentacles and a large bulbous head like an octopus. its arms, however, are connected by webbing that allows it to form a cloak around itself when frightened. like the octopus, it can change its colors, even making its cloak so dark that it appears invisible. remarkably, it has the largest eyes compared to its body size of any creature on earth. despite its mere six-inch length, its eyes are as big as those of a large dog. with its glowing orbs of eyes and its disappearing tricks, it's no wonder it's named after one of the most feared creatures of legends and folklore: the vampire. these creatures make one wonder not just about the odd members of the deep-sea community, but also what mysterious things inhabit the regions never visited by humans. what may be lurking in the deepest, darkest corners of the deep blue seas? one thing we know for certain, much like the outrageous monsters we conjure in our worst nightmares, the deep ocean is an equally imaginative source of shock, awe, and outright fright. what are the key differences between the atlantic hagfish and the gulper eel? use details and quotations from the text to support your answer.

How does the imagery used to describe the picture contrast with the imagery used to describe the news?

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."