Was Japan just in their decision to scrap Zaha Hadid’s competition winning design?

John Carino

In the world of architecture, sometimes the decision to build comes down to money. Money drives everything, and often it unnecessarily complicates situations. In the case of Japan’s scrapping of Zaha Hadid’s 2020 Olympic Stadium design it seems money have not been the main reason despite their claim.

When Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe scrapped British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid’s design for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic stadium, it was due to claims of spiraling material costs. While rising construction costs is an existing problem, Zaha Hadid and her architects argue the reasons behind the Tokyo government dropping her design were illegitimate and go beyond just the rise of financial issues.

In 2012 Zaha Hadid Architects won an international competition with their design for an 80,000 seat stadium that would be used for the 2019 Rugby World Cup, the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, and would exist as the home for Japanese sports for the next century.

Zaha Hadid’s world famous works include the 2012 Aquatics Centre for London’s Olympic Games as well as the in-progress production of the 2022 stadium for the football World Cup in Qatar.

For the 2020 Olympic Stadium project, Hadid produced a “streamlined design with two gigantic arches, resembling a cyclist’s helmet” (Kyodo). Hadid is known for her futuristic and progressive designs, and, this design in particular started to turn heads, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Zaha Hadid’s design for the stadium began receiving heavy criticism from famous Japanese architects as soon as it won the international competition. These high profile Japanese architects include Toyo Ito, Sou Fujimoto, Kengo Kuma, as well as Fumihiko Maki. Between these architects there was mutual agreement that her structure was too large and expensive, they also stated that Hadid did not understand the building site’s context, which also upset the site’s community.

The local community of the stadium site held a 500-person protest in outrage against the design. Along with believing the costs were too high, these architects and community members believed her hyper-modern futuristic design did not integrate well into its surroundings. While a hyper-modern design may seem appropriate to send a message to the world about Japans forward-thinking and technological advances, they felt it did not appropriately reflect cultural Japanese values and would inappropriately stand out in their community.

Her design disappointed more than just Japanese architects. Barcelona’s Olympic Stadium architect Arata Isozki called her project “a monumental mistake” (Japan). He claimed it left him “in despair”(Japan) and saw it as a “disgrace to future generations” (Japan). Zaha Hadid was shocked and disappointed in her treatment surrounding the project, especially when they dropped her design to host a new design competition so late into the design process.

Zaha Hadid had a different perspective of why her design was scrapped. She claimed, “This shocking treatment of an international design and engineering team, as well as the respected Japanese design companies with whom we worked, was not about design or budget” (Press).       

Hadid stated they just did not want a foreigner designing their national stadium. She called the Japanese architects who criticized her hypocrites, because they had all worked abroad themselves. She even stated “The fact that they lost is their problem, they lost the competition. If they are against the idea of doing a stadium on that site, I don’t think they should have entered the competition” (Japan).

“Due to 25 percent rise in costs across Tokyo’s construction market, the authorities used costs as an excuse to swap for a Japanese architect”(Press)

In response to the claims of a steep annual increase in construction costs Hadid responded “It is not the case that the recently reported cost increases are due to the design, which uses standard materials and techniques well within the capability of Japanese contractors and meets the budget set by the Japan Sports Council” (Japan). She claimed the increased cost of her project was a result of rising construction costs, not due to her design. Hadid argued by scrapping her design, they were setting them up for an entirely new set of problems and costs.

“It is disappointing that the government did not even consider working with the existing design team to build on the two years of design work they and the Japanese people had invested”(Wainwright). – Spokesperson for Zaha Hadid architects

This video rendering that expresses the extensive work Zaha Hadid and her team had already placed into the project.

Hadid argued that the Japanese government did not even attempt to work with her to revise her design. She claims they could have made it work, arguing that all of these delays that the government caused may make the stadium not ready for the Rugby World Cup and possibly even the Olympics, including an extended construction deadline which increases costs significantly after such a long construction delay. Hadid claimed her project construction would have already been in progress.

“Work would already be underway building the stadium if the original design team had simply been able to develop this original design, avoiding costs of an 18-month delay and risk that it may not be ready in time for the 2020 Games” (Press).

In July of 2015 Japan hosted a new design competition to pick a project to replace Hadid’s. Hadid’s argument seems to gain validity as the winner of the new design competition was Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, one of the architects that had previously criticized Hadid. Outrage continues to be drawn as his design had striking resemblance to Hadid’s design in plan and circulatory design aspects.

Zaha Hadid began to suspect collusion by the Japanese government as it seems their reasons for scrapping her design continue to become more illegitimate with its new developments, claiming: “sadly the Japanese authorities, with the support of some of our own profession in Japan, have colluded to close the doors on the project to the world” (Zaha Hadid accuses).

Hadid claimed Kengo Kuma’s replacement design has “remarkable similarities to her own” (Zaha Hadid accuses). She argued that they are very similar in shape and layout. She even asserted, “in fact much of our two years of detailed design work and the cost savings we recommended have been validated by the remarkable similarities of our original detailed stadium layout and our seating bowl configuration with those of the design announced today”(Press). Kuma responded to these accusations claiming, “In the design, I would like to say there are no similarities at all” (McCurry)

While Kuma’s design had a cost estimate of $1.4 billion and Hadid’s came in around $2.3 billion the multitude of factors and controversies surrounding Japan’s decision-making and treatment of Hadid seem unjust. They did not even attempt to work with her, and the tension grew between Japan and Hadid as legal issues arose surrounding Hadid’s payment for her work.

Organizers of the Olympics were refusing to pay Hadid for her scrapped design until she gave them all of the copyrights on her designs and signed a gag order. They also demanded that she and anyone at her firm not discuss or comment on the project. When giving over the copyrights the agreement that the Japanese government is demanding she signs “specifies that the stadium’s new design team is “allowed to use any product of work… regardless of its copyright”” (Zaha Hadid refuses).

Hadid brought forth her issues with the similarities of Kuma’s new design to the Japanese Sports Council. She hoped discussions could be held for her and her firm to be rightly treated and paid for the thorough design work created by her and her firm. If the issues cannot be resolved, Hadid claimed they would “take legal actions if our concerns are not promptly addressed to our satisfaction” (McCurry).

Is it not hypocritical for the JSC to claim they are not copying Hadid’s design, then forcing her to give up all her design copyrights so they can legally do just that? While the Japanese government may have had some justification in their decision to drop her design and while their reasoning was not always necessarily wrong, they took an inappropriate and deceptive approach by scrapping her design and trying to legally pressure her out of her copyrights and hard work.

While this situation may seem to only effect the Japanese Sports council and Zaha Hadid and her architects, it actually has massive implications that could affect thousands or millions of people. This stadium will affect the lives of everyone in its local community for generations. The construction of this structure is also important, consider if the project is now rushed because of these issues, could there be safety problems for its users if it is not built to the highest standard?

Perhaps by not going with Hadid’s design Japan may influence millions of people by the consequences of their actions. Consider if the stadium is not finished in time for the 2020 Olympics? This then becomes an international issue that will place Japan in a difficult situation.

Despite the many ways this situation could have developed, tragically on the night of March 31, 2016, Zaha Hadid passed away. The Japanese Olympic Prime Minister Toshiaki Endo respectably responded “although (the design) was scrapped, I would like to thank her for the contribution she made, the innovative design contributed greatly to Tokyo’s bid to host the Olympics”(Kyodo).

While Hadid’s firm may continue to communicate with Japan to resolve these issues, it is more important to reflect on the influence Zaha Hadid had on the architectural profession in her lifetime. She was the first woman ever to receive the Prizker Architecture prize, an award equivalent to the Nobel Prize in its prestige. Her futuristic and organic flowing designs have been recognized and praised by the world and the architectural profession. Japanese architect and critic of her 2020 stadium design praised Hadid whom he claims “had an amazing sense of designing architecture filled with aerodynamics all through her career”(Kyodo). She pushed boundaries, and her work will continue to influence and inspire architects for generations to come.

 

Works cited:

“Japan Scraps Hadid’s Tokyo 2020 Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 17 July 2015. Web.

Kyodo. “Tributes Follow Death of Architect Zaha Hadid.” Japan Times. 1 Apr. 2016. Web.

McCurry, Justin. “Tokyo Olympic Stadium Architect Denies Copying Zaha Hadid Design.” The Guardian. 15 Jan. 2016. Web.

Press, Associated. “Japan Picks Olympic Stadium Design to Replace Zaha Hadid Plan.” The Guardian. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

Wainwright, Oliver. “Bye Bye Zaha, Hello Fried Egg! New Designs Unveiled for Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” The Guardian. 16 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Accuses Japanese Government and Architects of Collusion over Tokyo Stadium.” Dezeen. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Forced to Throw in the Towel over Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 18 Sept. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Refuses to Hand over Copyright for Unpaid Japan Stadium Designs.” Dezeen. 14 Jan. 2016. Web.

 Images:

Image 1: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/kengo-kuma-tokyo-national-stadium-japan-sport-council-12-22-2015/

Image 2: http://archinect.com/news/article/145735758/tokyo-olympics-refusing-to-pay-zaha-hadid-for-work-on-the-national-stadium

Image 3: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/architecture/zaha-hadid-appreciation/

 

WRT 205/Spring 2016                                                                                  Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

 

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?

The purpose of the title is to grab a person’s attention in order to attract them to the article. I think my title does a good job doing that because all people want answers to their problems and I proposed a solution to a problem that affects all people.

 

[2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?

The introduction starts by asking a question assuming the reader already was wondering. I then go on to explain what nuclear energy is. I started with this because it is the basis of the solution so I provided it for some background. I then proceeded to ask another question about the energy that was meant to provide the problem and then briefly provide an overview of the solution before I went into more detail as the article went on.

 

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?

The basis of the entire article involves a very complicated and technical process so it must be explained. It is something that most people aren’t aware of so it needs to be put into terms so the non-technical readers can understand it.

 

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?

I’m not sure how I unique or stylish I was but my intention of the article was to present it as if I was having a conversation with the reader and I was answering the questions that they were asking.

 

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?

The topic is very controversial because of its past so I needed to provide proof that it can be the answer to a problem by making the proof about things that people care about, such as economics and safety.

 

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?

I took a strong stance by claiming that nuclear energy is the answer as long as people embrace it and develop it. I provided details such as the economics and safety in order to relate with the reader and be more persuasive.

 

 

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).

I did extensive research into my topic and this is shown in the amount of evidence I provided. The topic is not a basic one so I needed a strong understanding from a variety of sources if I want to persuade my audience to share my view.

 

 

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?

I used my sources as a way to simply prove that I wasn’t making stuff up and that real, highly educated people have proven time and time again that the view I have is a more common view than most people realize. The audience just needs to accept it.

 

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?

I used questions as titles as my article progressed as a way to direct all of the information that I obtained towards a specific question. It allowed me to craft my paragraph in a way that wasn’t repetitive and so it also answered any potential questions the audience may have.

 

 

[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?

I used a nice picture of a power plant as a way to make the plant seem more safe. I provided reasons why they are safe but I included the picture in order to allow people to visualize a safe plant. I also used a graph to back up some of the arguments that I was making and I was hoping that by showing the proof, more people would believe it.

 

 

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?

I changed the order of my paragraphs a few times in accordance with the recommendation of my class mate who proof read and edited for me. I believe that he helped me tremendously to make my article flow and be more persuasive and casual.

 

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

I used hyperlinks on a couple important claims I was making because without the claims, my argument wouldn’t stand and I wanted people to be able to physically see why I was making those claims.

 

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?

I tried to stay away from big words and I tried to use words that I would normally use in everyday conversation so that I could continue my goal to make the article seem like a conversation between me and my audience. I of course had to use some words that I wouldn’t normally use because the topic was complex and there was no way to better explain it without some of the phrases and terms that I used.

Unit 3 Reflection

1. I think my title is incredible intriguing. It grabs the attention of the reader because it addresses not only sexual assault on college campuses, but it introduces the idea that college athletes are considered celebrities.
2. The first part of the article talks briefly about how college athletes are viewed by ‘regular’ students including myself. I think, even though it may have been taboo, it was important to include my own opinion because I go to a school where both our men’s and women’s basketball teams made it to the final four of this year’s March Madness. I also briefly begin to explain a very well known sexual assault case that the media has covered for roughly three years.
3. I offered up a rather strong idea within the first few paragraphs of my article. However, I don’t think it necessarily requires a large amount of analysis to support or evolve it.
4. I showed organization throughout my piece by starting out broad and describing the reputation of college athletes on campuses. I then went into a rather detailed and lengthy description of a well-known sexual assault case against FSU quarterback Jameis Winston. Additionally, I used examples from as far back as 50 years ago.
5. I think I wrote in a broad enough sense that a large portion of the general population can understand it, but I didn’t compromise it by making it too broad and making it seem like a casual issue. The sequence of which I described the athletes, actual cases, and what can be done all flowed really well together.
6. The extensive research I did definitely showed throughout the article. I used sources like USA Today and Huffington Post, which are more secondary sources. I used a police deposition as a primary source because it was released directly from the Tallahassee Police Department. It has direct quotes from the officer that was helping with the case saying that he could have done more to help the victim, Erica.
7. I met all of the requirements and a list of my sources is available at the bottom of my article along with hyperlinks after direct quotations.
8. I wove the primary and secondary sources effectively throughout the piece. I was able to use a lot of information from more than half of them because they were full of it. The legitimacy of my primary source is very serious and official and it makes a good impression on the reader that I did my extensive research.
9. I used a sense of emotion in my piece by using direct quotes and my own personal opinions about the topic. I used strong words to convey what I was feeling and I think that that showed.
10. I only chose to use one visual because I didn’t think more than one was necessary. It’s just a silhouette of violence and I think it’s simplicity represents how simple this issue can start out as, but gets escalated with reputations and too many people being involved.
11. I wasn’t able to be present for a lot of the peer editing sessions we had, so I went about my own editing process from different perspectives; how would a parent read this? How would a college student read this? How would an educator read this? This really helped me get into different mindsets of what a viewer wants to hear.
12. I used them rather affectively. If I directly quoted something I put it afterwards in parentheses.
13. Since I edited so many times, I do feel that my attention to grammar and style of the writing was taken very seriously.

1. Reflect on your work over the semester. What were some of the highlights, surprises and/or challenges you encountered as a researcher and a writer? Why might these experiences be important to your development as a research writer? Provide specific examples.

I think that overall this semester I became a much better writer through research and analysis. From the first unit, I was able to gain an understanding of what the writer’s project is and how to analyze it. From there I was then able to translate that into my own work especially with the unit II assignment. I found myself taking secondary sources and using them as my own to provide support for my take on the controversial topic of paying college athletes. I also was not really aware of the online library databases that were available and after the workshop with Patrick, I was able to find much better and more credible sources that I found necessary for the type of controversial topic I had. People don’t want to see that you got your sources from opinionated sources, the better articles provide the facts behind your stance, and I believe that I did that very well.

 

2. How do the practices for research and research writing we have been doing this semester contrast or relate to other research work you are encountering or may encounter in the future (think across contexts–school, professional or personal research and writing)? Are there practices, learning or ideas from WRT 205 that you believe may be useful in current or future research writing situations? Have you developed any new understanding about the differences among and between research writing situations? Try to be as specific as possible. Include examples.

I would have to say that the library databases was the most helpful lesson that I learned. It allowed me to gain access to so many sources that I could also potentially use in future classes. In the business school we are always writing and doing case studies that involve scholarly sources and references. It is always necessary to make sure that the information is from the most credible sources and there is not fraudulent or incorrect numbers involved. This summer I will also be working for an investment bank in which I will need to put together presentations and analysis of my own. I have learned the importance of purpose as well as Kairos and exigency and how important there are to the relevance of the topic being discussed.

 

3. Reflect on the topic of inquiry: Food Politics and Social/Political Controversies. How did research and writing impact your engagement, interest or understanding as you worked within this inquiry?  Provide 2 or 3 examples.

For the first unit and working with Food Politics, it allowed me to explore an avenue that I wasn’t really aware of before. I was like most consumers who believed that food was out of our control. As the unit developed, I began to realize the importance of food safety and how corrupt the food industry actually was. I began to research articles on my own and visit websites that provided information on what consumers can do to spark change in the industry and regain control of our food system. As we moved into the political controversies in unit II it was difficult to choose a stance on my topic. The debate about paying college athletes is not an easy one, but as a student-athlete myself it made it even harder. As the evidence began to pile up against the NCAA and large institutions that pointed out the amount of money that they were hauling in, and the difference between the expenses on scholarships being given out, I made my claim that college athletes should be paid. My understanding of each of the topics grew immensely throughout each unit and I feel as though I am knowledgeable about each.

 

4. If you could continue working on one of your pieces, which would it be, and what would you want to do? Why?

I would definitely continue working with my political controversy. I feel that I found a substantial amount of information on the topic, and was definitely able to take my stance and get my point across about why student athletes should be paid, but I would have like to explore a bit more into how it would be possible. By this I mean some methods that could be used for the distributions of stipends beyond that of a scholarship. With the limitations of the length of the article I found myself focusing more on the why aspect and less on how it would be done.

5. If you were to choose one of your pieces from this semester (Unit I, II, III) to share with someone outside our class, which piece would you choose and with whom would you share it? What reaction would you hope for or anticipate? Why?

I think I would definitely like to share my ted talk with someone. I feel that it would be most beneficial to share it with someone that is not a student-athlete already, and maybe someone that has a significant amount of power in regards to the topic. I would hope that they would understand the amount of exploitation that is occurring and they corruption and unequal treatment in college sports. People are unaware of this issue of the NCAA generating nearly $1 billion in revenue off of the college athletes’ hard work. It takes a tough individual to play division I college sports and to be able to balance the long 40 hour weeks dedicated to that sport, and keep up with the demands of being a full time student. The institutions have allowed the incentives of money and greed to take over the true people that matter in this case, the athletes themselves.

I have a 50-year-old sibling with multiple medical conditions (uncontrolled epilepsy, a stroke that left her physically and mentally impaired, paranoid schizophrenia, to name a few) that have left her isolated and miserable. My 80-plus-year-old parents are her caretakers. She has the very best doctors, social workers and therapists — but none can give her a fulfilling life. She calls me crying every night, often threatening to commit suicide, a threat she has tried to make good on dozens of times. I’m struggling to know if I should stop talking her out of suicide and instead give her options for a death with dignity. If she were dying of a terminal illness, the discussion could be more frank. But what of these chronic conditions with no end in sight? Name Withheld

 

The quote above is from a New York Times article entitled Should I Help My Sister End Her Life? The reason why I start my article with the same quote is to describe to my readers why physician assisted suicide needs to be talked about, and why it has to happen now. If this man decided to help his sister just so she could finally be at peace, he could be charged with manslaughter and be sent to prison for up to ten years. This brother would never have to worry about anything like this if physician assisted suicide was legal. Physician assisted suicide or PAS is the act of a doctor prescribing the medication needed by their patient to end their life. This may seem extreme and a little ridiculous, but PAS can be very restricted. As shown by the laws in Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont and California, physician assisted suicide has many restrictions. As stated in their laws, “An adult who is competent, is a resident of Washington state, and has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.” Another requirement that is not listed in this statement is that the patient must have no more than six months to live.

 

Now that you’ve been educated on Physician assisted suicide and what it really is, you can understand the opposing arguments for physician assisted suicide and why most of them are absurd. The main arguments for why PAS should stay illegal are religious and moral based. The religious based arguments are centered around suicide being a sin, and the moral based arguments are centered around the Hippocratic oath.

 

The religious arguments are extremely difficult to combat because you can’t argue religion. Religion is based on interpretation and that’s why you can have people who are barely religious and others who murder people in the name of their religion. Based on that alone you can’t argue that physician assisted suicide is allowed religiously, but that shouldn’t be where you combat the issue. The area in which you argue for PAS is that religion doesn’t belong in our laws because some people are atheist and law has to account for everyone. That being said if physician assisted suicide is legal, then people who aren’t religious have an option, and people who are can abstain from PAS. Just because PAS is legal doesn’t mean that everyone has to use it.

 

The moral based argument is the most relatable to people. I mean if you were a doctor would you be able to live with giving your patient something that would kill them? Most people would say no, and I would be inclined to agree with them until you really think about what doctors go through. Doctors essentially become part of their patient’s family when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness. They have to deal with them day in and day out and they grieve with them as they slowly pass away. Now if a doctor is basically family why wouldn’t they start to think like the brother in the opening quote? In reality they would and a gallup poll shows that 68% of doctors do, and if doctors support it why should people say otherwise.

 

Now that you know the arguments against physician assisted suicide and how they are very weak, all you need to know is why should PAS be legalized. That is plain and simple, people want die with dignity and not be in agony for their last few months on this planet. Why should people who are healthy dictate their end of life decisions?

Heroin is no longer a private activity. Residue from users can be seen anywhere, in parks, on the streets, even on public transportation. A serious threat is being imposed on society and unfortunately it seems more people are supporting it rather than trying to fight it.

Heroin is becoming a very popular new trend in today’s society. The drug is cheap, highly addictive, and becoming increasingly available. Heroin addiction often starts from an original addiction to opiates, or painkillers. People are 40 times more likely to be addicted to heroin if they are addicted to prescription painkillers (US NEWS). In the nineteenth century, physicians played a major part in addiction, by using morphine and opium to cure common symptoms, unintentionally turning their patients into addicts (Unick, George Jay).[1] However, most of their patients were white upper, to middle class users, which supports the fact that prescription painkillers were not cheap. The steep cost is what makes users shift to heroin because they get a very similar high for a much lower price.

An estimated 13.5 million people in the world take opioids, or opium-like substances, including 9.2 million who use heroin (DRUG FREE WORLD). There has been a major increase in heroin use within the past decade. The rate of heroin-related overdose deaths increased 286 percent between 2002 and 2013 (US NEWS).

Despite what many people believe, heroin does not discriminate. It affects all ages, genders, classes, locations, and races. In fact, there has been a large increase among heroin use and young white males. Large metropolitan areas are said to be at the highest risk for heroin use, however now a lot of attention is being placed on white suburbs as they are becoming a problem area.

 

Although heroin is an illegal drug, it is becoming more and more public and its residue can be seen in many places. A video was posted on Youtube, on April 5^th, 2015, of a young man shooting up while riding a city bus in Philadelphia, in full view of other passengers.

Since heroin is so cheap and so widely available, users are buying more often and shooting up as soon as they can, often in public places. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city had to close the bathroom of a historic church that was open to accommodate homeless people, because several people had overdosed in them (NY TIMES).

The reason for the public use of heroin addicts may be partially related to the root cause of the addiction, which is legal opioid painkillers. In many different places, such as Linthicum, Maryland, Cincinnati, Niagara Falls, and Johnstown, Pennsylvania, addicts have been found in public restrooms, often in fast-food chains, overdosed, sometimes with the needles still in their arms (NY TIMES).

There have also been public views of addicts overdosing and then being revived by Narcan, which reverses the effects of heroin. In 2014, about 125 Americans died everyday due to overdose (NY TIMES). The death rate from overdose is increasing at a much faster rate than other causes of death.

Along with the public use of heroin, is the increase in safety hazards in everyday life. After shooting up, addicts often leave behind dirty needles and syringes wherever they injected. In a documentary titled Heroin in America, by David Muir on ABC News, groups of young children were asked if they had ever seen needles or been exposed to other paraphernalia before. All of them raised their hands and said that they have seen them while walking down the street, or lying in the grass at the park. With dirty needles lying around everywhere, it is very dangerous for society. So many diseases can spread if the needles were touched accidentally, and children should not be exposed to or have to worry about these things while walking to school or playing outside.

The best way to put an end to this would be to stop the supply of heroin all together. However, that may be a little unrealistic. Heroin is so highly addictive that it those who are under its control will do anything to get it.

Opioids and heroin affect the brain in the same way. They increase the amount of dopamine that is released in the limbic system of the brain, which creates intense pleasure. The pleasure is so strong that people become physically and psychologically dependent on the drug. The drug also takes over other parts of the brain, such as the systems that drive judgment, planning, and organization. These areas now encourage using the drug and the brain serves to people’s addiction (NPR). This all happens so fast that people become highly addicted with their first use.

The things addicts will do when they are in need of heroin cannot be underestimated. Heroin affects peoples judgment and decision making so much that users may do things they never thought they would do in a million years.

Some users anonymously posted about their lives as junkies, how fast the drug took over, and how ashamed they were of the things that they have done:

“From the day I started using, I never stopped. Within one week I had gone from snorting heroin to shooting it. Within one month I was addicted and going through all my money. I sold everything of value that I owned and eventually everything that my mother owned. Within one year, I had lost everything.”

“I sold my car, lost my job, was kicked out of my mother’s house, was $25,000 in credit card debt, and living on the streets of Camden, New Jersey. I lied, I stole, I cheated.”

“If anything, death was better than the a life as a junkie” (DRUG FREE WORLD).

Supervised-injection facilities are a suggested new form of treatment for the epidemic. These facilities aim to decrease the amount of overdoses and ensure the use of clean needles and other paraphernalia. Instead of rejection and exclusion, this approach suggests that a lot of the harm caused by drug use could be reduced with decriminalization, education, and the provision of clean needles.

This is silly because it basically supports the normalization of illicit drug use. Drugs, especially heroin, are causing so many tragedies in our country that people should want to put an end to them. However, by believing that it is okay to do drugs as long as you practice them safely is just maintaining the epidemic. This approach allows users to shoot up whenever they would like and does not show any of the consequences of using drugs.

The most beneficial form of treatment for heroin and opioid addiction would be specialized rehabilitation centers specifically for heroin and opiates. These drugs are so strong and affect people differently than any other drug. “Treatment for opioid addiction includes a variety of services: medication, talk therapy, job support, all stretched out over years. Detox is not enough” (NPR).

These rehab centers should also be more proactive in wanting to really help heroin addicts. Tracey Helton Mitchell, a certified addiction specialist, who was once a heroin addict, describes today’s treatment centers as a “one-size-fits-all” approach. She believes society needs to “have a variety of different kinds of treatment interventions that address people’s needs” (NPR). We need to stop grouping addicts together and try to reach out to them as individuals and help them based on their unique needs and motivations.

Before these changes can happen, society needs to drop the stigma around addiction. Many intervention agencies deem heroin addicts as powerless and incapable of reason and self-control. Treating people as if they have no chance of getting better will make them lose all hope and will to even try. In no way should addicts be praised, but they should be treated like everyone else. Heroin is a drug that can affect everyone. Like I stated earlier, it does not discriminate based on race, age, gender, or class, and it works so fast that it only takes one time to be addicted for life. Once people start treating addicts as individuals and not as a “troubled group” a lot of self-respect, rational subjectivity, and autonomy will be restored among addicts, and hopefully the addiction rates will decrease.

The last thing I believe will help put an end to the heroin addiction that is sweeping the nation, is truly educating people of all ages about the dangers of heroin.

Other than a health class in sixth and ninth grade, I have never really been exposed to much information about heroin. I learned that it was bad and illegal but a lot of drugs people use are bad and illegal. However, those other drugs do not affect people’s lives even a quarter as much as heroin does. If people were really submerged and saw how heroin changes almost every aspect of a person’s life and how they become completely dependent on it, it would make society, especially the youth, realize that heroin and opioids are not something to mess around with.

As simple as it seems, it could really be effective in reducing heroin addiction rates within the United States.

Putting an end to heroin and trying to reduce addiction is something that needs more attention and more support. With the way it has increased in the last decade, let alone the past couple of years, I am scared to see what the future will be like if nothing changes. People need to start now otherwise in the upcoming years there will be more supervised-injection facilities than McDonalds restaurants.

 

[1] Unick, G. J., Rosenblum, D., Mars, S., & Ciccarone, D. (2013). Intertwined epidemics: National demographic trends in hospitalizations for heroin- and opioid-related overdoses, 1993-2009. PLoS One, 8(2) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054496

 

Reflection

1. I think that my topic alone is something that people are very curious about and are interested to read about. I tried to be very gripping with my title and lede by using the word “epidemic” and informing readers that something big is affecting society and that it is very serious.
2. My introductory section does a good job with exigency because it talks about today’s society and how people are being affected by heroin, whether they are the ones using or just bystanders. It also talks about the increase in numbers from past years to today.
3. I reiterated my main idea multiple times throughout my article. Each paragraph, whether I was talking about statistics, the background of heroin addiction, or ways to prevent it, I supported my main idea and used sources as well.
4. I think I did a really good job organizing my piece. I went through everything I wanted to tell the reader and put it together so it flowed nicely and made most sense.
5. I think that when writing this piece, I read through my research and the stance I took on the topic, and really thought about and tried to address counter arguments in my article. I tried to fully develop my point of view and support it completely.
6. I looked through a lot of sources when researching my topic. I wanted to make sure I was very informed and the information was accurate. I connected the research I found and used it to help support my stance and show flaws in other counter arguments.
7. I used many sources in my article to provide statistics and expert’s views and opinions. I relate some of the views of different sources to show how others support my point of view as well.
8. I used sources at good times when I was trying to make a point and a source supported that and provided reason behind why people feel that way and why it is a good point of view.
9. I think I used ethos, logos, and pathos, well. I tried to connect to the audience through pathos the most because I tried to make the reader see how heroin can ruin your life. I provided examples and quotes from heroin addicts describing how they feel about being a junkie and showing how dependent they are on the drug.
10. I used multiple visuals in my article. I used a lot of graphs showing the differences in people and places that have the most heroin users. I also used another graph showing the amount of deaths from heroin in each state from 2003-2014. The visual I thought was most effective was the video of the heroin addict shooting up on a public bus. This video made me sick to my stomach when I watched it and I think it will have the same effect on others.
11. I think my final article is a million times better than any of my drafts. When I first started this assignment I was not really sure where to go with it or how to fit all my information in in an organized manner. Each draft was more organized, and I think my final article is very well organized and full of information.
12. I used hyperlinks to immediately direct readers to the full articles and videos I used for my article. It allows the reader to get more knowledge and read other interesting articles on the topic as well.
13. I think I did a good job with grammar, style, and usage. I tried to sound very credible by making sure my writing was for a more mature audience.

 

Many people believe that Donald Trump is a racist, bigot, jerk, idiot, etc. with bad ideas that will cause World War Three. For example how he treats women, makes fun of the other candidates, and talks specifically about different Religions.

Though he may come off that way, he still has many good ideas to better the United States of America. Wether you like Mr. Trump or not you have to think that he does have some decent ideas on boarder control, creating jobs, and ISIS. He might not be the best “face of America” but do we really need a “politically correct” face of America or someone who has no filter and gets the job done?

America is in trouble and needs a strong and smart leader with good ideas to do something to fix the many problems. There are many different problems that we are facing including ISIS, boarder control(especially the Mexican boarder), big companies leaving America for cheaper taxes and labor, and other things. Many people believe that Mr. Trump might be a bad president but have you taken a look at what the other candidates have to offer? They might be just as bad or worse with what they want to do with America.

Lets take a look at Mr. Trumps ideas and how crazy they really are. We can start with Mexico and building a giant wall. There are many illegal immigrants in the United States and tons of drugs pouring over the boarder. He says that he will build a wall and let people come in the legal way. This sounds like a great idea because we are getting taken advantage of by the Mexicans. For Example in 2014 there were 11.3million illegal immigrants in the United States and Mexicans made up 49% of that. Between 2008-14 illegal aliens accounted for 38% of all murders in 5 states when their population is only 5.6% total in those 5 states. But many people still think that building a wall is a crazy idea and not even possible.

Mr. Trump says that the Mexicans are sending over their worst people full of killers, rapists, losers, ect. He claims that they bringing the drugs over poisoning our people and we are sending a ton of money over to them in exchange. They are committing crimes, not paying any taxes and taking jobs. This makes no sense that the people in charge are letting this happen and should be stopped as soon as possible. It would also create many jobs to build the wall but the big question everyone has is who will pay for it. Mr. Trump claims that Mexico will pay for it which many find hard to believe. But many candidates agree with Mr. Trump when it comes to securing our boarders and think that it is a good idea!

Next lets take a look at his idea for bringing jobs back to America. In the past ten years 47 companies have left the United States for places like China and Mexico.This leaves many Americans out of jobs because of cheap labor in other countries. This is a big problem with many people not having jobs or having low quality ones here in America. The jobs that are leaving are well paying, well benefited, good jobs.

Mr. Trump has a solution for this problem, he says to tax the companies around 35% for every item that they sell. This is a good idea since most companies would either take the huge loss in tax(highly unlikely) or have to move back to the United States and start doing business again. But many people criticize Mr. Trump by saying that he himself has had companies in other countries. But this isn’t about Mr. Trump, he obviously will do what makes himself the most money in his personal life. It sounds like he wants to do whats best for the United States by trying to bring companies and jobs back to America.

There has been a lot of talk about the war on terror and our current president Mr. Obama. The biggest issue with this is how to combat ISIS and what we should do with Syrian refugees. As many Americans think Mr. Obama is taking a conservative approach to combating ISIS. He also wants Syrian refugees to enter the United States by the bunch.

Mr. Trump is the complete opposite. He says that he would whip out ISIS immediately by blowing up their fuel and other ways that he does not want to open the book too. He also said that no Syrian refugees nor Muslims should enter this country until we know what is going on and how to have them go through very strict security. Many people call Mr. Trump crazy and racist for his ways about ISIS and the refugees. But do most Americans feel safe with Obama as president? Or would they want a better conducted strong fight against ISIS and a thorough check on refugees? Im guessing the second one.

Is it racist to have no filter in trying to protect your country? Many do not blame Mr. Trump for saying the things that he does. There are things to back his thoughts up about some of the people that he talks about. For example have you ever heard about Sharia law? To sum it up it is a law that some Muslims follow, it means that their way/god is the only one and you should believe in it also. 1 in 5 Muslims in the United States approve of violence in order to institute Sharia. Mr. Trump also wanted to keep and eye on mosques in America. People also thought that was a crazy idea until one got raided in Europe and a bunch of weapons were found.

Most people say that the way that Mr. Trump talks is nasty, disrespectful, unfiltered, not politically correct. Is that a good thing or a bad thing in todays world? Lets look at the bad side first.

He could make an entire race, country mad and hate the United States more than they already do. He could make a leader very upset and start a war with us. He could also start riots and protests that turn into violence. Well lets just sum it up, he could ruin the entire country.

But on the positive side he does not care what people think and says what he wants compared to other politicians that are funded and say things because of who is backing them and what the people want to hear. He could get Americas economy booming by creating more jobs and bringing companies back to the US by lowering taxes. He could build a wall and tighten up the boarder making it hard for the bad people to get in and easy for the good people. I think of Mr. Trump as president just like I think of investing money and that is risk reward. You might take a high risk and lose everything but you could also make a great amount of money.

I believe that Mr. Trump would be a good president for many different reasons. I think that most of his ideas make sense when you think about whats at stake. For example I believe that building a wall would benefit the United States. Keeping drugs and illegal immigrants out is not a bad idea. It would create many jobs to build the wall and watch over the boarder. If people want to enter the United States they should pass strict security tests and come in legally. Also with what recently happened in Paris, many of the attackers traveled throughout Europe because of their weak boarders. Having strong boarders is a must have with what is going on in Mexico and in the middle East.

Mr. Trumps ideas to bring jobs back to America and to create more jobs could also work. This shows proof through his past on creating many jobs with his business background that he has. His idea to tax the companies very high will cause them to either come back or face the harsh penalty.

I think that his outlook on ISIS is powerful and not weak compared to Obamas. We need a strong leader not a weak one, obviously we don’t want to get into world war three. I think that denying the refugees is not a bad idea either, cant they find a country closer to them that will take them in? Do we, the United States have to be the whole worlds caretaker and policemen? I do not believe so. There is a difference between doing what is right and doing what is right for yourself. You have to look in the mirror and ask is this a good decision for me?

If you think that Mr. Trump is racist just because he calls all illegal immigrants bad people then go look at the statistics, you will probably agree with him. Or how he said to hold off all Muslims from coming into this country until we know whats going on. Why don’t you ask some family members who had family in the Word Trade center in 2001 about keeping an eye out for terrorists. Just because he has had a few run ins with women does not mean that he hates all women. He is a little on the agressive side of things when it comes to American safety but what is the problem with that? I hate going to the mall, sporting event, anything where there is a large gathering of people due to these terrorist attacks that have been happening. So yeah I agree with Mr. Trump on tightening up security a lot at the boarders, don’t you?

WRT 205/Spring 2016                         Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine 

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue? Yes, I believe that it catches the readers attention as some will think “heck yeah!” and others will think “heck no!”. It gives a nice lead onto what is being talked about throughout the article.

[2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale? It gives them something in common to relate to in their views wether they are with Trump or Against him. It also brings up a hot topic with the presidential election coming up and the different problems in America. It provides background and rational through all of the arguments and debates in the past and up to this point about Americas issues and fixing them between the different ideas of the different candidates.

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.? The writer shows ideas from both sides of the views but leans towards one side the whole time then at the end explains why.

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics? The writer shows facts and his own opinion un a nice way to show both sides of the argument. His topics that he uses brings in old information on our previous president and uses him as a benchmark for the problems that need to be fixed in America today.

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material? I think that the writer covered all bases of the argument that most readers will pick as side and agree with mostly what he has to say. I think that he did a good job at making the argument well rounded that people will find a side. The writer organized and sequenced the material nicely giving an overview of the topic and situation, switching into specific topics and then showing what his views are on the topic.

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?  The writer had good research on the topic and knew what he was talking about. You could see that he did leaned towards one side of the argument for a persuasive stance. He used the research in good spots throughout the article where he needed credibility and he made an argument and talked about it at the end.

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ). The researcher used many sources throughout the article and had a few visuals to go along with them.

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis? The writer does a good job at blending in the sources and using them to back up his information that he used. He uses many statistics as sources to backup what he is saying/trying to argue in the article.

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)? The writer talks about things like fear, money, drugs, violence, etc. to get the readers at a personal level. He uses open ended questions about the things stated above to get the reader thinking about their self and family.

[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?  He selects visuals related to the topic and even at a lower scale of some of the issues that he talks about. Yes the visuals contribute to the piece in a meaningful way using the main character of the essay as a visual.

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments? The writer took into consideration the main idea that was passed around class to comment on a sheet of paper. It helped a lot to create a better argument and add onto the draft to bring the whole piece together.

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

He used links to show Donald Trumps website and the specific issues

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?  I believe that he had a flowing piece with good sentences spaced nicely. Most sentences were strong to give him credibility and helped him with the issue.