What is nuclear energy you ask? Commercial nuclear power plants use a process called fission to to produce energy. Fission is essentially just splitting a large atom into smaller ones. This splitting of large atoms also releases energy. This reaction takes places inside of what is called a pressurized water reactor. The energy from the reaction in the reactor is then used to heat up water that is flowing through the system. The water is then turned to steam and the steam is able to turn a turbine. The turbine creates work and the work is used to power a generator which then releases electricity on a very large scale to the cities around the power plant. It is a very complex reaction but it utilizes the same basic process that coal plants and wind power turbines use to create electricity.

The question that usually follows now is, “what makes this energy so special?”

Nuclear energy is special because of the potential that it possesses. It has a ninety-one percent capacity factor, which is the energy that is currently produced compare to the theoretical total that it can produce. The theoretical total is just how much of the energy that the reactor is able to produce, but some of it is lost in the process, either through heat or through other sources. For comparison, coal has a fifty-eight percent capacity factor, so you can see that it is not very efficient at creating good amounts of energy, as almost fifty percent of it is lost in the process. The ninety-one percent that nuclear reactors produce is the capacity factor for the outdated designs that most nuclear power plants use today. However, newer designs can produce upwards of one hundred times more energy than the old models. Newer models are extremely efficient and can endlessly produce energy that can be used immediately. There are dozens of different reactor designs; all of which can solve the energy crisis if they become implemented. Dangerous fossil fuels, which are not energy efficient whatsoever and are harmful to both the environment and us, can finally be phased out.

You may now ask, “you say it is safer, but how much safer is it?”

With proper regulations and safety procedures in place, nuclear energy is significantly less dangerous than fossil fuels. There are heavy regulations and safety procedures in place to ensure the safety of people surrounding the plants, as well as the people that are operating them. Nuclear energy results in only about 0.04 deaths per terawatt of energy produced compared to the 161 deaths per terawatt from coal energy. A terawatt is essentially a measure of a large amount of energy produced. Nuclear power plants also result in about 0.005 percent of the radiation that is allowed per person per year. That is 100 times less radiation released than coal! Nuclear energy is easily the safest form of energy because it is an industry that is held to a very high safety standard in comparison to the coal industry or oil industry. The operators are very educated and very highly trained in all safety regulations and safety procedures. If there were any accidents, regardless of the size or impact of the accident, support for the industry would take a huge hit due to the history of the industry and the misconceptions that has been taught to the general public regarding nuclear energy. Public support is a big part in growing nuclear energy because if the general public supports it then government officials will also support it and they will increase funding and make the energy more widespread and the misconceptions will disappear.

It makes sense to be be cautious and hesitant to support an energy form that doesn’t have a great history. So I’ll try to clear up some of the misconceptions that most people have.

When most people think of nuclear energy, the first things that come to mind are the biggest disasters: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. What people don’t understand are the facts behind these disasters. Chernobyl became a disaster because the people in the government that oversaw the plant decided to do a riskier experiment. It required them to turn off all of the safety features. As a result, the plant blew up because all of the safety protocol was ignored and put aside in order to conduct the experiment. It was not a nuclear explosion that caused the plant to release enormous amounts of radiation; it was just water rapidly expanding and changing into steam. This steam was in a closed space and so it exploded. Fukushima, on the other hand, resulted from a poor design of the plant. The plant was not prepared to handle large natural disasters, so when a 20-meter-high wave, a tsunami, hit the plant, it knocked out all of the power and the operators didn’t have the proper tools to regulate the reactors. As a result, the reactors blew up much like Chernobyl did. Three Mile Island was the only disaster to occur on American soil and it resulted from a lack of communication within the industry about a faulty part within the process. Soon after the incident, the U.S. government created new agencies that would allow for the sharing of information and designs in order to prevent any of these types of disasters from happening again.

Nuclear power plants simply cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. This is because of the safety features that are built into power plants that activate automatically. The fuel is also not nearly concentrated enough to produce enough energy for a nuclear explosion. But even so, nuclear power plants are one of the most guarded places in the United States. Each plant sports no fly zones and a very wide security perimeter in order to make sure that there are no unwelcome visitors. To enforce these security features, each plant has a highly trained and heavily armed security team. Most are ex-special forces operatives so it is safe to say that each plant is in good hands. And to defend against any cyber attacks, the plants only send out information, they do not allow any incoming information which blocks any hackers from accessing any systems remotely.

“So if this energy is so safe for people and the environment, and it has such a high potential, then why has it not deemed a ‘green energy?’ Why has it not been talked about nearly as much as other alternative green energies such as solar power, wind power, and hydropower?”

This is a very complicated answer because there are many moving pieces involved with the nuclear industry. To give a short answer, it is basically because the public does not accept this form of energy so the government cannot help to advance the industry like it can for other renewable alternatives like solar and wind energy. The first step should be to label nuclear energy as a green technology because of the fact that it doesn’t harm the environment because of its lack of carbon emission. Nuclear energy is also perceived to be a very dangerous energy because of the history of it. Its history has been a huge factor in the formation of the many misconceptions that many people have. Events such as Chernobyl and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan have people scared to believe that this energy can be the answer to humanity’s current energy crisis. The misconceptions that people form are then transferred to younger, less informed generations in schools and to older, less informed people during protests. Most people only look at the negatives surrounding the industry and most of this information only comes from news stations that report on disasters.  As a result, nuclear energy is quickly overlooked as a viable source and more money is pumped into other, less efficient sources. This makes nuclear power less viable because without government help, the capital costs for the current nuclear power plant designs are too high and so less are built. If people did more research into the topic, they would be pleasantly surprised to see how far the industry has come and how ready it is to step up and become the primary source of energy. That isn’t the only thing though. Since the nuclear energy industry is not nearly as big as the fossil fuel industries, it cannot progress and advance because money talks and the other industries have more money. The money then translates into lobbying power on Capitol Hill and the majority of the lobbying is done by fossil fuel industries. If more people put their faith in this energy, then more advancement can be done and the energy crisis will be a distant memory. The future of energy is up to people like you and me and future generations to make the right decision and to choose nuclear energy.

Imagine an abundant energy source that when used, does not produce any harmful substances. Imagine being able to produce the same amount of energy in one plant of this form of energy that takes 50 coal plants to produce. Imagine how different society would be if we could just use up as much energy as we need, without any concern of running out or doing any harm to the environment. That energy source is nuclear energy.

[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.

On March 7^th 2016, a crestfallen Maria Sharapova took the stage in Los Angeles to announce that she had failed a drug test at the 2016 Australian Open for a drug called meldonium. Sharapova supports nearly a dozen charities, a dozen causes, and was a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme, a role which she has been suspended from in light of her failed test. Being the fantastic athlete and upstanding person that she is, on top of her public announcement and cooperation shows that she did not intentionally infringe upon regulations. She publicly stated that she did not even know that the drug was added to a list and considered a performance enhancing drug.

Meldonium is a drug, also known as mildronate, produced by a pharmaceutical company Grindeks, and is used to treat symptoms of diabetes and irregular EKG results, both of which Sharapova exhibited in her youth. Her doctor prescribed the medication without the intent to give her an upper hand in competition, a medication that was not added to the World Anti-Doping Agency banned substance list until January 1^st of 2016. Grindeks released a statement, in which representatives said that meldonium is used to prevent cell death, and does not constitute “doping”. In a statement, representatives said, “Meldonium cannot improve athletic performance, but it can stop tissue damage in the case of ischemia [deficient blood flow to a body part]. That is why it is a therapeutic drug”. The drug has never before been recognized as a performance enhancer, and was not prescribed to Sharapova with that intent, so why should she be considered at fault?

Sharapova states “For the past 10 years I have been given a medicine called mildronate by my family doctor and a few days ago after I received the ITF letter I found out that it also has another name of meldonium”. “On 1 January the rules had changed and meldonium became a prohibited substance which I had not known. I failed the rest and I take full responsibility for it”, said Sharapova. It is understandable when preparing for competition, training and taking care of her body, that she did not take the time to cross check her prescription medication with The (Banned Substance) List, as it is referred to.

Meldonium was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency banned substance list on January 1^st 2016, which Sharapova failed to notice. Every year, an updated list of banned substances is made available to athletes; yet, Sharapova stated that she and her staff neglected to read the list. I have looked at the WADA Banned Substance List, and it is incredibly poorly organized and hard to read. Substances are not listed clearly, but are lumped together in one paragraph, including their true chemical name, such as “dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (4-chloro-17β-hydroxy-17α-methylandrosta- 1,4-dien-3-one)”

Her explanation and public apology for the mistake were sincere and showed remorse. It is understandable that somebody would not take the time to read through the confusing substance list to see if a medication they take has been added. She did not attempt to hide anything, like athletes such as Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong and Alex Rodriguez did before they openly admitted to INTENTIONALLY doping. She was open and honest; her prescription was filled through her family doctor and not kept a secret. Other famous cases of athletes found to have intentionally taken performance enhancing drugs typically involve years of denial, secrecy and lies. Sharapova’s method of handling the situation shares no similarities with the cases listed.

In the case of Lance Armstrong, he was accused of taking PEDs (Performance enhancing drugs) first in 1999 after he achieved incredible athletic feats during the Tour de France, that nobody in the media believed he would be able to do naturally. He denied the accusations, stating that “it would make no sense for him to dope”. He had a professional relationship with Michele Ferrari, an Italian trainer known for using controversial methods with his athletes. He denied any foul play. In 2004, he was accused, along with other cyclists on the Motorola cycling team, of using drugs. He and all of his teammates denied the allegations, and almost all of the teammates were later found guilty. When a newspaper later in 2004 reprinted the same story, including allegations of drug use, Armstrong sued for libel. In court, two different witnesses had contradictory accounts of whether Armstrong had doped. The allegations and repetitive denials go on until in 2013, the jig was up, and on the Oprah Winfrey Network, Armstrong admitted that all throughout his career, throughout all of the denial, he was actually taking drugs.

None of Sharapova’s behavior is consistent with Armstrong’s story, and none of it leads to the conclusion that she was attempting to gain a competitive advantage over her opponents in any way. Her love for the sport, honesty and sincerity outweigh the simple mistake of not reading through every line of a convoluted and complicated document.

The athlete became a rising star in the mid 2000’s when at the age of 14, she competed in her first professional competition. In 2006, at the age of 17, she beat Serena Williams in the finals of the Wimbledon to win her first Grand Slam title. This incredible feat could only be achieved by a truly talented and dedicated athlete, one who didn’t begin taking the so-called “performance enhancing drug” until one year following her victory.

The prevailing opinion is that meldonium is a banned substance, and that Maria Sharapova has known all along that she was taking a drug that could increase her ability in the game of tennis, however, for nearly one-hundred percent on the time she was taking the medication, she had no idea that there was any issue of the drug being branded as “performance enhancing”.

She explains in her press conference that she failed a drug test at the Australian open and takes full responsibility for it, that she made a huge mistake. She states, “I let my fans down, I let the sport down that I have been playing since the age of four and I love so deeply. I know with this I face consequences and I don’t want to end my career this way and I really hope I will be given another chance to play this game”.

On July 9^th 2012 the United States Anti-Doping Agency announced that United States women’s national soccer team goalkeeper Hope Solo tested positive for a banned substance. Similar to Sharapova’s case, Solo states, “I took a medication prescribed by my personal doctor for pre-menstrual purposes that I did not know contained a diuretic. Once informed of this fact, I immediately cooperated with USADA and shared with them everything they needed to properly conclude that I made an honest mistake, and that the medication did not enhance my performance in any way”. Solo’s incident was deemed an honest mistake, and that she did not intend to break any rules. Solo, much like Sharapova, has a love for the sport she plays, is a philanthropist and a good person. The agency looked at the facts of the case and the quality of Solo’s character and decided that she deserved a second chance. Maria Sharapova equally deserves a second chance. She has not earned the lack of respect, loss of sponsorships, and suspension from not only the game, but her roles as a philanthropist herself.

When seeing their personal or family doctor, most people, like Solo and Sharapova, are simply looking for a treatment or cure for existing symptoms or ailments, and will trust that their medical advisor will prescribe the best possible medication for them. The fact that both players unknowingly were taking drugs that are banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency and immediately and publicly cooperated with the agency to resolve the matter and get back to what is truly important to both of them – playing the sports that each of them live for and love.

Works Cited

• Code, The World Anti-Doping. THE 2015 PROHIBITED LIST INTERNATIONAL STANDARD (n.d.): n. pag. Web.
• “History of Lance Armstrong Doping Allegations.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
• Kubota, By Taylor. “Maria Sharapova’s Failed Doping Test: What Is Meldonium?” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 11 Mar. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
• Majendie, Matt. “Maria Sharapova: Baby-faced Teen Who Conquered Wimbledon.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
• “Maria Sharapova Banned from Tennis after Testing Positive for Recently Banned Drug.” Women in the World in Association with The New York Times WITW. NY Times, 08 Mar. 2016. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
• “Tokyo Charity Tennis Clinic 2012.” Maria Sharapova Official Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.
• “US Soccer Athlete, Solo, Accepts Public Warning For Rule Violation | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).” U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). USADA, 09 July 2012. Web. 25 Apr. 2016.

WRT205 Unit III Reflection

1. The title, “Maria Sharapova: Not a Typical Doper” brings to light the recent headline of Maria Sharapova failing a drug test for doping for those who did not already know. It also, for those readers who already knew about the test, contradicts the prevailing public opinion that she is guilty of being a typical doper – that is, intentionally attempting to enhance her performance. The lede is too long, the argument/stance actually is found in the third sentence, it would have been good to find a way to make the lede the first sentence. The surrounding text, however, does lead the reader into the article by providing insight (in a broad way, which is expanded upon in the following writing).
2. The introductory section offers up exigency by giving the date of the incident – recent within the past two months. The first section could be more inviting to the reader, it is relatively bland.
3. The ‘idea’ is strong, that is goes beyond just did she or did she not fail the test, but did she intentionally do it? Most people probably do not know that Sharapova is a philanthropist, evidence that she is a good person, not somebody who would intentionally cheat.
4. The article is laid out in a way that shows clarity of thought. The reader will probably ask after the intro, what is meldonium? The next section explains this. They would then think, why did she take it, if not for doping purposes? Again, the section following explains this, and so on.
5. There are some instances of vagueness and cliché, unfortunately. The first sentence of the 6^th section, “Her explanation and public apology for the mistake were sincere and showed remorse”, is entirely opinionative, and a NYT Magazine reader would challenge this. Need more specifics.
6. The controversy is well explored, by analyzing similar cases, as well as specifics about Sharapova’s particular case, and looking at the timeline of her case to explain the controversial stance taken that she is not “guilty”.
7. More than one primary source is used, by comparing both Lance Armstrong’s doping case and Hope Solo’s doping case to Sharapova’s. One of these was used to replace a secondary source. I felt that it was necessary to have this additional primary research in order to convince the reader that my argument holds water. I wanted to compare Sharapova’s case to both the case of an innocent and guilty athlete, to show that she shares similarities with the innocent one and dissimilarities with the guilty one. More than one visual source is used to try to make the reader empathize with Sharapova. Seeing her at a charitable foundation for children, and winning the Wimbledon title at 17 years old show the reader that she is a good person and great athlete.
8. Some quotes are not introduced effectively, and are just “drop-quoted”. That is something that I have always struggled with as a writer.
9. The second paragraph/section effectively uses a position of authority (the manufacturer of the drug) to support and make a claim about the position.
10. The visual of Sharapova at a Tokyo Charity with children is effective by making the reader exude sympathy and empathy for Sharapova’s case. It is meant to help reinforce the idea that Sharapova is a good person, not one who would use performance enhancing drugs.
11. Honestly, I did not get to use the various drafts for development of the article as well as I would have liked. I am in one of the hardest semesters of my college career and was not able to spend as much time as I would have liked to synthesizing drafts and peer reviews. The reviews that I did receive from peers were also extremely broad and vague, and did not make any specific suggestions but essentially told me to be more “convincing”, not offering any suggestions as to how I could do that.
12. The hyperlink used is to an article on Meldonium, the drug of interest in this article. It is used to give readers a chance to read more about the drug, rather than to spend words and time on the article describing it in more detail than is necessary for the argument.
13. Grammar is typically not an issue for me, and I believe that I edited the article properly in this regard. The style of the article needed more editing – I was not able to recreate the style of a NYT Mag article very well. This would have allowed me to establish more credibility/authority, by appearing more comfortable in my writing style and in deconstructing/constructing my claim.

Beyoncé Breaks Racial Barriers For The Benefit of Our Country

Beyoncé performed her new single Formation at the 2016 Super Bowl highlighting black culture and received negative backlash. Why is this? Was her message really negative? Did she have some good points? If you watched the performance, what was your initial response?

Reflecting on 50 years of Super Bowl halftime performances, Beyoncé’s “Formation” performance at this year’s Super Bowl must have been the most controversial. The halftime show created political tension and negative backlash toward Beyoncé. This performance may even be more controversial than Janet Jackson’s performance in which her breast was suddenly exposed, causing the NFL a great deal of embarrassment while families stamped the show as inappropriate. Beyoncé’s performance at Super Bowl 50 created the same notion along with a massive political issue regarding race and police brutality. Days after her performance, social media began “Boycott Beyoncé” hashtags and anti-Beyoncé rallies according to Fox News because many did not believe her performance embracing black culture was appropriate. Considering the Super Bowl is one of the most viewed sporting events in America and is where we are able to celebrate parts of American culture like BBQs and witty commercials, we all expect to see a very “American” musical performance every year at halftime. If America is a place that encourages all people to be proud of who they are and where they come from, how can lyrics such as “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag” and “I like my negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils” be taken offensively to some, especially coming from a highly respected and empowering African American woman? How can any of the words in Beyoncé’s song Formation be offensive in any way toward police officers? Why are officials embarrassed by Beyoncé’s expression of a very American black culture?

Beyoncé’s performance was intended to be more empowering than offensive by embracing current black culture. Many Americans were not ready for such a fiery performance, which showcased an all-black cast of dancers, confidently dressed in tight leather outfits and military berets reminiscent of the Black Panthers. If America really takes offense to this sort of celebratory display from African-Americans, racial injustice and discrimination will never truly fade. The negative backlash to Beyoncé’s empowering lyrics, music video, and outfits worn during the performance proves there is still a present negative view on black culture. Although a number of Americans did not appreciate the performance, most did and found it extremely powerful and admirable. We all need to face the realities of racial injustice in America.

Racially-driven police brutality has been an issue since the 1950s and there have been many movements in effort to end the issue.The Black Lives Matter movement that started in 2013 and the Black Panther movement from the 1960s are prime examples. Considering Beyoncé is such an empowering woman in America to people of many races, her platform allows for her pro-black message to be heard. Included in her pro-black message is her confidence in the Black lives Matter movement, which came about after numerous cases in which unarmed black citizens were killed by police. The Black Lives Matter movement is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-black racism that exists in society. Although this message is expressed in her music video in a scene with children and the words “don’t shoot us” written behind them on the wall, she does not mention these ideas in the actual song lyrics. Black lives matter is a relevant topic in current black culture, which is why she incorporated this idea in her video.

There is a distinct difference between anti-police music and music embracing black culture. Beyoncé’s lyrics simply confide in the embracement of black culture and pro-black attitudes, but many people are still considering the song to be anti-police because of imagery (that wasn’t included in the Super Bowl performance) like the “don’t shoot us” scene in the music video. However, anti-police music is nothing new and “Formation” is far from anti-police. The first major anti-police song came about in 1988 from the rap group known as NWA. If we compare Beyoncé’s lyrics to the historical NWA’s song “F the police” where their lyrics have a blatant anti-police message, we can see how Beyoncé’s song is harmless and strictly pro black. “F the Police” has a strict anti-police and police-brutality message that should not be compared to Beyoncé’s Formation lyrics. They refer to police officers as “nothing” and “punks”. Beyoncé’s lyrics do not mention the behaviors of police and their duties. In Beyoncé’s interview with Elle magazine, she was asked, “What do you feel people don’t understand about who you really are, and in particular about the message you’ve put forward with Formation?” She responded saying, “I have so much admiration and respect for officers and the families of officers who sacrifice themselves to keep us safe. But let’s be clear: I am against police-brutality and injustice. Those are two separate things.”

We can call Beyoncé’s song “pro-black” and say that it “empowers women” because of the way she mentions and embraces many black cultural qualities. For example she embraces stereotypes when she says “I like my Negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils” and “I got hot sauce in my bag, swag.” Beyoncé also empowers black women by saying “earned all this money but they never take the country out me”. She is implying that she will always remember and embrace where she comes from regardless of her becoming upper class. Furthermore, the Super Bowl happens to be in February, which is also Black History Month. Black History Month is dedicated to African American culture and its history, so it should not be considered bizarre or wrong for Beyoncé, an inspiring black female artist, to express her appreciation toward her black culture. She also says in her Elle magazine interview discussing the Formation criticism, “If celebrating my roots and culture during Black History Month made anyone uncomfortable, those feelings were there long before a video and long before me.” Beyoncé is not creating new issues and sending people negative police messages, but she is making this shaded issue and idea relevant. America needs to address and work toward solving these issues rather than attacking Beyoncé for shining light on them. How else can awareness be spread if nobody says anything?

Aside from lyrics, Beyoncé and her dancers’ all-black outfits perhaps play a role in this political controversy. They are wearing outfits that considerably resemble those of the participants in the 1966 Black Panther movement. The dancers wore all-black leather jackets and shorts along with military berets that are similar to the Black Panthers’. Although many people associate violence with the Black Panthers, the Black Panther Party’s original purpose was to patrol African American neighborhoods to protect residents from acts of police-brutality. They fought for better gun control laws in order to make the lives of African Americans safer. Beyoncé and her dancers wore these outfits to show respect to some of the people who made a difference in black history, which should not be surprising during a time such as Black History Month. Even though Beyoncé and her dancers looked outstanding in their outfits, there was a negative association between their Panther-esque uniforms and the KKK. In the article “Sheriffs: Beyoncé is ‘inciting bad behavior’ and endangering law enforcement” by the Washington post, a sheriff named David Clarke makes the point that these outfits are similar because they were both worn by people involved in groups who participated in violent acts. He says that we would also be appalled if anyone was to wear “hoods and white sheets”. Many claim the Black Panthers were also a hate group toward police officers, but their main focus was to fight against police brutality. In light of the all-black outfits worn in the performance, Beyoncé was paying also homage to the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. In the 1993 super bowl, MJ performed wearing a piece that looks just like the one Beyoncé wore in her performance. In an interview after the performance with Beyoncé by EXTRA, Beyoncé says “…it’s the 50th anniversary, so I gave love to my favorite performer.” Aside from the outfits, she also mentions Jackson 5 in her lyrics when she says, “I like my negro nose and Jackson 5 nostrils.” So instead of shunning Beyonce for her performance and outfits, we should appreciate how she was able to show respect to those who made a difference in black history.  

In addition, African American female artists have a harder time earning respect than any other artists. In an article named “Hip Hop Herstory” the author, Jodi Merriday highlights some of the accomplishments of many popular female hip-hop artists and how they have changed the industry. The author details the lack of recognition the artists receive and the hardships they face in the industry. Her research also discusses Hip Hop culture, production and music, while also providing a womanist perception of lyrics from artists like Salt N’ Pepa, MC Lyte, Queen Latifah and Sister Souljah. So, as an African American artist, Beyoncé is already in a category that makes it hard for people to appreciate what she has to say. Trying to convey a pro-black message is even harder because of the fact that America already tries to push aside issues regarding race. A black woman sending out a pro-black message should be appreciated and valued rather than debated. We should accept these types of performances so future generations of all races can do the same and embrace their respective cultures.

In America, we are told to express ourselves, to be proud of our culture and who we are. Criticizing Beyoncé’s performance is doing the exact opposite. It’s 2016, and an empowering African American woman speaking about racial issues and showing her black pride frightens America. The problem is not Beyoncé herself or her black pride, but it is the fact that America is too sensitive and uncomfortable addressing racial issues and black culture. No matter how hard we try to ignore and avoid drawing attention to racial inequality, the problem still exists. Continuing this behavior will make future generations afraid of making efforts to solve racial inequality and other sensitive issues. Instead of looking at Beyoncé’s performance in a negative light, we should embrace what she says in her lyrics about black culture and appreciate that she wants to make people feel empowered.

Unit reflection:

• The title focuses the reader’s attention because it expresses the main point that her performance was positive and the point of it was to help better our country and not cause more racial bias. It is a bit creative because is raises the question “How did her performance help our country? (Which is addressed in the article) Yes, the title does provide insight to the issue. I think my lede could have been a bit stronger to be honest.
• The intro of the article is inciting to the reader because it talks about the Super Bowl and this is something of interest to many Americans because many people watch it. The super bowl was fairly recent which is another reason why it can be considered inviting and this is why it also reflects exigency. It locates a problem because it mentions the immediate backlash from the performance such as boycott Beyoncé hashtags and rallies.
• The writer offers a strong idea by showing the positive connections between Beyoncé’s performance to black history. The writer also mentions the point about February being black history month. This should automatically open the readers mind to acceptance of the performance. Not many people took this into consideration before judging her performance.
• I used many relevant connections and back-up to support the ideas. The historicized topics help make the main points stronger. It helps the reader understand the true meaning of some of the ideas conveyed in her performance and also helps to clarify some of the invalid argument of the controversy.
• In my writing, I address the fact that the audience will challenge my ideas by being descriptive about the performance and giving background history of some of the things that she presented in her performance. By doing this I was able to eliminate vagueness and questions about historic topics presented in her performance. I tried to use quotes directly from Beyoncé so that points are less arguable. I organized the article so that the main issues people had with the performance were addressed first, and then I gave information about Beyoncé’s character and role in society that helps support why her performance is so meaningful.
• I was able to create an importance of the debate by talking about the future issues that will come about it if Beyoncé did not do what she did. I was able to utilize research by providing quotes from Beyoncé directly on the topic of her performance, which made my arguments stronger. I tried to develop a persuasive stance by letting people know why her performance was important in today’s society.
• I was able to use 6 sources. My primary source was from an interview with Beyoncé in Elle magazine. I was able to use direct quotes from her answers to questions about the backlash from the performance.
• I was able to use historic information to help back up Beyoncé’s reasoning for some of the things she did in her performance. I was also able to use to secondary sources to help define and explain things such as the black lives matter movement. My sources deepened the meaning of the text because it helps readers understand the importance of black history in her performance.
• The use of rhetoric is present in my article when I talk about American values and cultures. This makes the readers reflect on their beliefs and values as Americans. (When I talk about how America is a place that we are supposed to be proud of who we are and our background) I also try to persuade the readers that if we don’t accept these types of performances, racial discrimination will never end.
• The first visual I chose was used to show how powerful Beyoncé and her dancers seemed onstage. It also allows to the readers to see the outfits that were described later in the article. The second image of Beyoncé next to Michael Jackson wearing the same outfit was used to show a detail that many people did not realize. Michael Jackson had an influence on her performance, and I think that detail is interesting that many people did not know before reading my article. I did not include an analysis of my photos but what was shown in the photo was described in the writing.
• My opening paragraph changes a lot from my first draft to my final draft. One of the biggest improvements over the course of editing and workshops was my claim. I was able to make it more detailed and specific to what I was going to talk about in my article. All of the work we did analyzing our sources made it easier for me to include them in my final draft.
• I only used a few hyperlinks. I tried to use them for articles from well knows news sites such as Fox News and things that people might want more information on such the Black Lives Matter Movement.
• I tried to make sure my sentence structure was appropriate for the New York Times. I tried not to make them too vague and I tried to make each sentence have meaning. My sentences were able to establish my credibility because I did not leave room for doubt or unsure thoughts. Since I was trying to persuade readers, I made sure my sentences were to the point.

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 title is quite provocative.  It gets right to the point of my article and what I discuss throughout the course of it.  My title is also somewhat controversial, considering the fact that it makes an assertion about Donald Trump that many people disagree with.  As a result, I feel like that makes it even more enticing for people to continue on reading.  In regards to my lead, it is both thoughtful and creative, and ties in personal experience during my life to the subject with which I am discussing.  I feel that it brings me closer to the reader and is characteristic of a blog article, rather than a research paper.

[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?

My introduction does a marvelous job, in my opinion, of bringing the reader both closer to me, the writer, as well as the subject with which I will be discussing.  It gives a small amount of background on Donald Trump, the man who is discussed throughout the course of this paper, as well as gives the reader a problem or controversy, or rather a position that I am taking that will be proven throughout the article.

[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.?

My idea or point that I am trying to prove becomes quite evident quickly throughout the course of this blog article.  I make it clear what I am trying to prove in my writing, and I use various analyses and examples in order to prove this point.  Because of the fact that this is a blog article, and not a research paper, I chose to leave out direct quotes and things that would have to be cited.  Instead, I did research and do have evidence that proves my point, but said things in my own words.  I felt that it would be more characteristic of a blog article.

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

I like to think of myself as someone who can clearly articulate thoughts and put them down on paper in a coherent manner.  That definitely applies to this article.  I felt that my points were clear and well thought out, and that they specifically pertained to the subject I was referencing.  In addition, I had many historical examples of evidence to support my claims, as well as present day evidence.

[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 felt that in my article, vagueness and generalizations were not used.  In fact, one of the points that I tried to hone in on throughout the course of this paper was that generalizations are bad and shouldn’t be used, so for me to use generalizations myself would be a contradiction.  In addition, clichés were not used here.  All of my points were valid and came up with on my own, and don’t speak to a talking point or something easy to discuss.  They all came from evidence I combed through.

[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 did much research before writing this article.  In addition to the plethora of sources I used during my TedTalk presentation, I felt that I did a good job of utilizing new evidence.  That being said, its important to recognize the fact that in a blog post, I felt that it would be more appropriate to avoid using direct quotations and citing of sources.  Instead, I looked at the evidence that I had found to support my claims and said them in my own words, which I felt was more appropriate for a blog article.

[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? ).

Speaking for myself, I did find evidence and facts that were used throughout the course of this article in a variety of ways, and thus, I did meet or exceed the limit referred to above.  However, I can’t emphasize enough that I felt it would better suit my article to type those facts and present them in a way that made the reader feel as if they weren’t reading a Masters Degree thesis paper, but rather an article by someone who was speaking to them in a language that was easier to understand and more enjoyable to read.

[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?

Conversing was what I felt was the strongest part of my article, and it started from the very first word.  I felt that it was extremely important to have the reader feel a connection and an interest that would have them continue to read.  My anecdote at the beginning did just that, in my eyes.  In addition to that first paragraph, the entirety of the article speaks in a way that I believe allows the reader to feel as if its a conversation or a speech between two friends, rather than a dissertation that would bore them.

[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 claims that I am making should persuade any reasonable person who is reading this article, because they are all facts.  Everything in my article that I have used as evidence to support my claim is a fact, not conjecture.  In addition, much of the evidence I use can be found if the reader wishes to do a little “googling” themselves, and as a result, they will see that my sources are reliable.

[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)?

The writer did not do a good job with providing visuals.  I dropped the ball in that manner, and take full responsibility for the fact that my article will not be as aesthetically pleasing as other peoples’.  

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

Based on the first draft and the outline that I conducted about 2 weeks ago in regards to this final paper, it has come a long way.  My evidence is much more effective and concise than it initially was, and in addition, my ability to converse with the reader and use anecdotes and my own voice to appeal to their senses has greatly improved.

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

Hyperlinks were not used.  However, as stated in the question, the effectiveness or appropriateness of hyperlinks was brought into question.  As I have stated throughout the course of this reflection, I wanted and made sure to create an article that wasn’t overly intimidating or dense, but rather something that someone would enjoy reading.  I feel that when someone enjoys reading it, they are more likely to believe and take the claims one is making as factual.  Because of the fact that I didn’t use direct quotes, I felt that to use hyperlinks would be ineffective and not appropriate.  

[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 pride myself in making sure that grammar, style, sentence structure and flow are all perfect.  I double checked my article to make sure that in my mind, everything was top notch when it came to the way the article read.  In addition, I made sure that both spelling and grammar, and as stated above, style and sentence structure were all conducive to the reader having a pleasant experience delving into my article.

Did you know the Earth is hotter than it’s ever been? In Paris back in December, The United Nations convened and over 126 countries agreed that there is definitely a problem. Yet, back in the US, it doesn’t seem like it’s a big deal.

The common narrative, especially in the states, is that global warming is only a long term issue. Most people think the dangers associated with climate change are in the distant future. The latest climate change statistics are evidence of just the opposite. 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded only to be followed in 2016 by the hottest January ever. The following February, according to NASA, was the most unusually warm month in over a century.  It is very clear within the scientific community that global warming is real and is having traverse effects right now. There are many potential dangers and risks associated if there is continued non action. The Environmental Protection Agency has continuously detailed the threats posed to agriculture, transportation, human health as well as other various sectors. In addition, on April 4^th The Obama administration released a 332-page report that illuminates how global warming may sicken U.S. Citizens. The report warns of contaminated air, water, and food.

The EPA’s website says “The severity of these health risks will depend on the ability of public health and safety systems to address or prepare for these changing threats” (Impacts, EPA). This is important because it means that the longer we wait to address this issue the more dangerous it becomes. That is why it is so important that we change current blasé narrative. As we delay action we simultaneously debilitate ourselves. Every single day the corrective and protective potential of climate change policy decreases.

Economics is often used to argue against climate change policy. The case is made that renewable energy sources are still too expensive as opposed to coal technology. This is becoming increasingly false. Energy.gov provides comparative figures that show that cost of wind, solar, and electric technologies have decreased and their deployment has increased. Climate Change has the potential to devastate economy as well. A study published in the Nature science journal states that “unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality” (Nature). The estimated costs of damage due to future droughts, floods, and heatwaves numbers 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars.

Hopefully by now you are on board with the informed, in thinking that this is huge deal. If you are like me then your first question is probably, “is anything being done about this”? That question brings us back to the U.N. meeting in Paris I mentioned earlier.

The Paris agreement has a very clear focus, stating in it’s opening

“Recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries, and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, with a view to accelerating the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions” (1, UNFCCC)

Every signing country is required to make certain pledges or commitments in greenhouse gas reduction. Certain countries have also pledged to subsidize clean energy in other developing countries. The year 2020 has been set as a checkpoint and or deadline for progress. In addition to global emission, certain benchmarks were made for global rise in temperature. The convention aimed to keep it below 2 degrees Celsius with the goal being 1.5 degrees. The language of the document utilizes the word “ambitious” often to emphasize the belief that countries should be challenging themselves in efforts to shift to cleaner energy sources. The Paris agreement not only calls for quantitative progress but qualitative as well, referring to policy. “Recognizing the importance of the engagements of all levels of government and various actors, in accordance with respective national legislations of Parties, in addressing climate change” (21, UNFCCC).

In fact, the success of this agreement is solely dependent on resulting domestic policy, in the agreeing countries. All the agreement really is tangible commitment by the associated countries to do their best to convince their home governments that climate change initiatives are a priority. The Paris agreement has been lauded by some as historic. While in its existence it is somewhat unprecedented, many have criticized the acclaim it has received, arguing against its effectiveness. Some feel the national commitments are either unrealistic or too complacent. In the time following the agreement, preceding its signature, it has become apparent that the critics may have a point.

Globally, there has not been drastic successful legislation that aims to address climate change. The documented pledges of countries such as China and the European Union have been called into question not only externally, but internally as well. Developing countries such as India, one of the largest global contributors to greenhouse gas pollution, are apparently still anticipating international subsidiaries and therefore has been stalled in their energy efficiency efforts.

The United States hasn’t made much better progress towards their goals either. Although, aggressive legislation does exist, it just has yet to pass. Obama’s Clean Power Plan aims to reduce the carbon emissions specifically from power plants. It requires states to submit detailed plans in the near future, that are designed to achieve just that. However, on February 9^th when brought to the Supreme Court the document was delayed. The court stayed the ruling on the plan, pushing back the decision. The delay of the decision in turn delays any resultant action, should it be passed. The court’s decision is representative of the strong dissent, within the government, to aggressive climate change policy. “By staying the rule, the court heeded the concerns of more than two dozen mostly red states and energy companies that oppose it” (M.S.L.J., TIME magazine).

Is this the first time your hearing of this decision? I wouldn’t be surprised; this news hasn’t received much mainstream circulation. Our own carbon emissions threaten to destroy the world and it’s not on the front page. That’s precisely the problem, and exactly why, as it stands, the Paris agreement is doomed to fail. The Paris agreement isn’t political action. The Paris agreement constitutes a tangible promise between world leaders to take political action. As far as the U.S. is concerned, it will be difficult to keep that promise. The Republican party doesn’t even acknowledge global warming as an issue. In an election year, the leading GOP candidates do not hold a stance on the climate change in their platforms. There was a whopping total of one question about climate change in all of the GOP debates thus far.

Bernie Sanders often criticizes the media for its lack of coverage on climate change. This criticism is crucial to ending the current narrative. If the public knew more about the recent drastic changes to global climate, they would be just as concerned as the U.N. Record breaking temperatures should become common knowledge. Issues such as gun violence, while an important national concern, are sensationalized and given mass coverage. Climate change cannot attract ratings because there currently appear to be no victims. What we as citizens must realize is that we all as humans will be the victims. The scary thing is, that if we wait until that is abundantly evident, we will have waited too long. It truly is on us. For global warming to be prioritized in American media and politics, it must first be a priority in the hearts and minds of American people. This article may serve as a conversation starter, but in order for this country to live up to its status as a global leader and for the future of human existence, it is up to you to keep the conversation going.

Works Cited

http://energy.gov/articles/clean-energy-economy-three-charts

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v527/n7577/full/nature15725.html

Climate Change Could Wreck the Global Economy

http://www.economist.com/node/21679865

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/02/americas-battle-over-climate-change

https://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/climate-change

https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/climate-action-plan

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/

http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/global_climate_debate/stories/1060032233

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-world-has-changed-since-paris-climate-pact-20142

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf

“The music Industry can make you feel like a prostitute.” Says Jonathan Davis, the lead vocalist of metal group Korn.

The music industry has a habit of taking talented artists and morphing them into a money making machine. The majority of the world revolves around money and everyone knows this, it is a given. However, when it comes to the music industry what makes the money is the people and who gets majority of the money is the record label. So it is a trend that is seen where talented young women are put in provocative clothing, wearing two pounds of makeup, and told to go on stage and sing a song that has been changed to suit what will sell the best.

Things have become less and less about the talent and the lyrics than about the money that the artist will be bringing in.

The film Beyond the Lights came out in 2014 and besides the love story aspect, it really hit home on this topic. The film stared Minnie Driver and Star Wars actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, the movie covers the life of a suffering British Pop-star and how she has changed since she first discovered her love of music. It shows her as a young curly haired girl singing Nina Simone’s Blackbird. She goes from a talented to young woman with an incredible voice and a passion for singing to a 23-year-old woman with lingerie and leather hair extensions singing a provocative and highly auto tuned song. Feeling unseen, unloved, and exploited she tries to committing suicide. From this point on she realizes that she doesn’t want to be everything that her producer and record label want her to be. So she removes her hair extensions, fake nails and changes her clothing and she becomes happy again. This movie was all too real for anyone who has undergone the game sort of realization. This is not uncommon, producers have a habit of changing a celebrity to suit what will make the most money and this film was a prime example of how this affects someone’s life.

It may have been a dramatization but the situation still exists in the real world we just don’t see it. We are extremely blinded by fun music and cute outfits we fail to see the what could be going on behind the scenes.

When evaluating the success of musicians in popular outlets like the Billboard Top 100 Artists lists, seven of the top ten artists of the month are female. This is something that is constant throughout the year, that women musicians are at the top of their game. Jennifer Lopez, one of the many women in Billboards list recently spoke out about the dynamic of the music industry. She has been working in the music industry since she was very young and says that to this day the industry professionals value women less than they do men. Which is not surprising because this is a trend throughout the world. However, when you look at the statistics it is hard to believe that the industries top money makers are still respected less and undervalued.

We all know that wage gap between men and women are just one of the many things that set women apart from the rest. Jennifer Lopez recently spoke with W Magazine about her career and is quoted saying “…It’s a man’s world, and, truly, people in a business setting do not value a woman as much as they do a man. I feel like I am constantly having to prove myself. If a man does one thing well, people immediately say he is a genius. Women have to do something remarkable over and over and over. And, even then, they get questions about their love life.” Being an important woman in the industry for more than a decade she knows this sort of misogyny for herself, even if it isn’t realized the workplace is male oriented. After releasing this statement J Lo was scrutinized because later on that week she released a song that was produced by Dr. Luke.

Luke’s name may sound extremely familiar due to the fact that his court case with Kesha is plastered all over the news. Almost everyone knows who Kesha is when they think of Tik Tok and the very memorable line of brushing her teeth with a bottle of jack. However other than this court case many non-music aficionados wouldn’t recognize Dr. Luke’s name or real name Lukasz Gottwald.  And no he is most definitely not a real doctor. He is a guitarist and music producer for many large Billboard artists such as Kesha, Kelly Clarkson, Katy Perry, Ciara, Miley Cyrus, Jennifer Lopez and many more talented women. Many of these women, such as Jennifer Lopez and Ciara were scrutinized for releasing music recently that was produced by Dr. Luke and Kemosabe.

When talking about the inequality in the workplace for women the music industry is a prime example. The Kesha Vs. Dr. Luke scandal is a sexual assault case that is pretty much a prime example of the misogyny in the music industry. What J Lo said was correct; we live in man’s world.  A world where we question a young girl’s accusation of sexual assault against someone who holds power in the music industry and where accusations of rape are not taken seriously.

Sexual assault in the workplace has been recognized as a problem since the 1970’s, over the years it has been recorded that sexual assault is the most frequent cause of death among women. It is hard to record due to underreporting but the estimated prevalence rate of rape and sexual assault is 30% among adult women. Kesha recently created a blog called “The Industry Ain’t Safe” for women to anonymously share their stories of sexual assault and harassment in the music industry.

So why is it that he is currently winning the case? Is it because he is one of the biggest producers in the industry? Is it because Kemosabe needs him? Or is it because he is owned by SONY?

Kesha’s legal battle has been rough, trying to win a case against a label as big as Kemosabe which is owned by SONY is not an easy case to win. Kesha Serbert is suing Dr. Luke and the record label associated to break free from her contract. She signed a six album contract with Kemosabe Records when she was round 16 years old and is accusing Dr. Luke of drugging and sexually assaulting her over the past 8 years.  As well as controlling and psychologically abusing her. However, this case is geared more towards escaping her contract rather than incriminating Lukasz.

In her most recent court ruling Kesha was denied a primary injunction which would have allowed her to record her own music outside her contract. She was denied freedom from someone who drugged her and sexually assaulted her for years, someone who is 20 years her senior and someone who turns to twitter to preach his plea (shown above.)

This is not the only time Kesha has spoken out about her abuse, in 2005 when Kesha was 18 he drugged and raped her at her hotel room after a Nicki Hilton’s birthday party. Because she was intoxicated and because it was 11 years ago makes this invalid even when her mother has proof.

As Jennifer Lopez said women aren’t valued the same as men, in any industry. Clearly we can see this, when Kesha has been assaulted for years and has statements on multiple of these instances along with phone call evidence and eye witnesses it is not enough for her to win. It is not even enough for her intentions to be believed. Many sources believe that she is lying and has been lying for 11 years to break out of her contract. Dr. Luke’s attorney spoke to Billboard (who is owned by SONY) and gave them this statement, “Kesha’s court filings are and have always been a transparent business ploy to pressure Luke into a more ­favorable and lucrative contract.”  Why would this young woman invest 11 years of her life to a lie, and why do we feel the need to question her allegations.

There is a stigma about sexual assault and rape that we need to change, we cannot continue to let this happen. Let Kesha inspire you to take a stand as she has done for so many others, she is not the bad guy in this situation. When it comes to sexual assault and rape 8% of all rapes occur in the workplace and eight out of ten times the person is not a stranger. When it comes to the workplace it often occurs between someone of power and someone of lower standing and 91% of the time the victim is a woman.

With these statistics why should we question Kesha’s accusations, she is a woman, he is in a higher position than her, and he raped her multiple times. That is all that we need to know. Women in the world are lacking a sense of credibility when it comes to this topic. We see it time and time again. There was a time when women didn’t have the right to vote it seems like we have come a long way since then but have we really?

Women need to come together, since Kesha’s case was made public female celebrities have come out to speak on their experiences and to show their support. They have donated their money and created #freekesha. Even Kesha herself is helping other women come out about their abuse on her blog.

While there might not be a lot we can do about individual opinions in regards to powerful people (such as Judges) we can come together as a community to support fellow women so they get the respect that they deserve and not tolerate these situations again.

Unit III Reflection:

1. Because my lede isn’t as straight forward as it would be to an essay my title sets the stage for what people are going to be reading. Without the title the reader wouldn’t know till the fourth or fifth paragraph that I am using Kesha to prove my point. My lede gives the basis of what I am trying to say throughout the article.
2. Using a quote to open my article before the introductory paragraph grabs the readers attention, and sets a precedent for what the next paragraph will be like.  The first paragraph doesn’t give too much a way but also doesn’t read like an introductory to an essay, it gives some small background and to the industry.
3. My idea that is constant throughout the piece is inequality and sexual assault in the workplace, and with that I bring to light a lot of points that I found in my research that a lot of people wouldn’t normally think of. As well as comparing to things relevant in the world right now.
4. The sentence structure and word choice found throughout my article are subjective to my unique brand of writing. I thought out my ideas and points before putting them to paper to make sure that the reader would not be confused when interpreting the article.
5. I brought up unique examples that the regular NYTs reading wouldn’t think of on their own. I avoided cliche ideas on inequality and brought attention to the facts so that they are unable of challenging these ideas.  I organized it in a way that was able to keep the readers attention by adding quotes or examples from current events.
6. As the writer I definitely had my own point of view towards this controversy and it is evident in my writing, I used the research I found in many ways to not only persuade the reader but also to inform the reader enough to make our decisions.
7. I did an extensive amount of research on this topic both during this unit and last unit. Finding a way to specifically include it into my article, while they might not be hyperlinked they were all used to help me complete my writing. I used a visual that included text examples of tweets that I referenced in the article.
8. I used my secondary sources a source of information to fill in the blanks, a way to add context to the article and information for the reader. My primary sources helped me make the connections on sexual assault in the workplace. While I did drop a quote of two in my piece they were quotes that helped my article grow and reach out to both younger (J. Lo) and older ( Jonathan Davis) readers.
9. I persuaded the audience by informing them and showing them points of view that they might not have otherwise noticed. I didn’t only use my side I utilized the view points of others in the industry.
10. I chose a visual that pertains directly to the two paragraphs surrounding it, it is a picture of Kesha leaving court and then two of Dr. Luke’s tweets that I briefly mentioned. It is interesting because it is not just a picture it has more to it and it makes you read. It provides the reader with a little bit of a break and an interesting to visual to what I was saying at the time.
11. The many drafts I did really helped me finalize my piece along with the help of my classmates. The first draft, while small I wasn’t sure how to start or where I was going with my points, it was very choppy and all over the place until the second draft or third draft when everything started to come together. With suggestions and critiques from my peers I was able to finalize my article.
12.  It was hard to use hyperlinks because it was hard to really reference my sources, however when I did I gave direct links to magazines they could look themselves for the information or similar information.
13. My word choice, sentence structure and choice of grammar added to my article and I believe gained credibility with use of my many sources.

Brandon Zirzow

Writing 205

4/25/16

Flint Water Crisis Leaves City Drowning in Corruption

With the current United States Government recently reaching nearly 20 trillion dollars in total accumulated debt, all evidence points to Government corruption and unorganized Government spending to blame for the lack of desperately needed funding for infrastructure repairs and updates. This lack of funding has led to a multitude of recent, potentially deadly infrastructural failures all across the United States.

The infrastructure all across the United States is in such poor condition numerous major cities, in the near future, are at serious risk for infrastructural failure. Every year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) releases an Infrastructural Report Card establishing a specific letter grade for the current condition of different types of infrastructure found in the United States; we are currently failing, “The best grade the United States received was a B- for solid waste (solid trash removal), and the ratings just keep going down” (Kearly). As the infrastructure across the United States continues to rapidly decay the amount of necessary funding needed to fix the failing infrastructure will continue to increase, “…it is estimated that 3.6 trillion dollars will need to be invested by 2020 to fix everything” (Semerau). It is apparent that the current infrastructure in the United States is in desperate need of a serious uplift but how did the condition get so poor in the first place?

The current public infrastructure established by our government, paid for by our taxes, including roads, bridges, water facilities, and other public works are currently in need of desperate updating, renovation and funding, “Railways, ports, and public parks and recreation got Cs on the ASCE report card, while dams, drinking water, hazardous waste, levees, wastewater, aviation, inland waterways, and transit all got Ds. It’s completely terrifying to think about all the disasters that could result in any one of those categories” (Kearly). The current state of the public infrastructure, specifically the public drinking water facilities, established in the United States is ranked so poorly that there have been multiple infrastructural failures all across the country that have put hundreds of thousands of innocent people at risk.

One of the most recent potentially deadly infrastructural failures occurred in decaying Flint, Michigan, “In Flint, Michigan jobs have been scarce for years, but crime and foreclosures have been on the rise” (Clarke). The infrastructural problems in Flint have reached such a dangerous level to the extent where the combination of failing infrastructure and corrupt government officials have left thousands of innocent citizens at risk. With the multitude of recent infrastructural failures across the United States and corrupt government parties, the citizens of Flint are not the only ones at risk.

In Flint, Michigan the local government represented by Governor Rick Snyder, has recently been under heavy scrutiny and criticism for improperly carrying out a 2014 decision, to desperately try to save government funding, to switch the city of Flint’s main water supply from the treated Lake Huron to the untreated Flint River (“Flint Water Crisis”, 1). The decision to first switch the city’s water supply was in result of Flint having extreme financial issues and was an attempt to cut government spending in any way possible.

Why are we (the public) taking the risk when the corrupt government is to blame? The taxes we religiously pay to the government to have these simple public works fully functional and adequate are funding the private pockets of corrupt government officials.

When the physical change in water supply was conducted, necessary chemicals were not added to the water in order to prevent pipe corrosion in the existing water infrastructure. This attempt to save even more money by cutting necessary corners allowed a dangerous level of lead to leak into the city’s main water supply therefor contaminating the public drinking water of thousands of people, “Residents have for months—by cooking, cleaning, eating and bathing—exposed themselves and, more catastrophically, their children to lead, a well-known neurotoxin” (Clarke).The trace amount of lead levels in the public water supply have slowly been building up to a potentially dangerous level due to the slow response of Governor Rick Snyder, “This combination released lead anywhere from 25 to 1000 parts per billion into residents’ tap water. To put this in perspective, the Environmental Protection Agency allows only 15 parts per billion” (Semerau). Now, instead of paying a little bit more and carrying out the proper procedures the Flint government along with the residence of Flint are going to be paying to fix the corroded pipes for years to come.

When small, harmless trace amounts of lead were first detected in Flint’s water supply, months before the Flint government publicly announced there was a public health concern, governor Rick Snyder decided to hold off administrating a state of emergency and delay telling the public of these extreme health concerns. This delay was administered in hope of saving desperately needed government funding by allowing the problem to “fix itself” instead of directly addressing the problem and asking for much needed federal aid.

This delay in emergency response from Flint’s corrupt government officials escalated the problem from a slight water contamination issue to a full city water crisis, “We know that between 6,000 and 12,000 kids…have been exposed in this period of time to lead” (Kelller). Now thousands of Flint’s residence are suffering from extreme levels of lead poisoning and have little to no access to fresh water for bathing, cooking, and cleaning, “Compounding the initial error has been a failure at all levels of government to understand and respond to the crisis, in spite of efforts among a few individuals in government and health services to bring attention to the community’s unfolding unnatural disaster” (Clarke). If Governor Snyder and his team of environmental specialist put the safety of the residence first they would have taken proper precautions and alerted the public of potential harm immediately.

Personal emails containing information about the lead contamination between Flint’s top environmentalist and Governor Rick Snyder have been leaked to the public further confirming the rumor that Flint’s government officials knew of the possible lead contamination in the water months prior before publicly releasing a state of emergency, “Snyder acknowledged lead poisoning of Flint’s drinking water around Oct. 1, but faced strong criticism for not declaring a state of emergency in Flint and Genesee County until more than three months later, on Jan. 5” (Eager). This information was wrongful withheld from the residence of Flint and now they are the ones suffering because of it.

Today, Flint is relying on the support and funding of hundreds of outside, private donors such as sports stars, famous actors and actresses and a multitude of local companies, “As celebrities, corporations, and concerned citizens from around the country send bottled water and aid to Flint, Michigan to help the beleaguered community deal with the lead crisis, some residents are being shut out from receiving clean water” (“Seriously? Some Flint Residents…Don’t Have an ID”). Many more have pledged to continue to donate crates of fresh, uncontaminated water bottles, lead poisoning tests and other supplies directly to the people of Flint in order to help those directly affected by this deadly water contamination crisis.

Many people now claim that the slow response time to receive outside aid from the federal government and large support organizations was due to Flint’s mainly minority demographic. Many of the residence claim that this type of extreme infrastructural failure and decay would never happen in more affluent neighborhood and if this were to happen in another neighborhood, they believe the response would have been a lot swifter and more effective.

Flint’s failing infrastructure has been of public concern for quite some time and has just recently started to receive federal funding and attention due to the most recent fresh water crisis Flint is now recovering from. This issue in Flint brings up a bigger issue regarding large-scale Government corruption and failing infrastructure at all government levels across the United States (local, federal, community). The government’s first concern should always be preserving the safety of its people. This was not the case for Flint. Flint’s elected government officials deceived and lied to the public, the press, and the residence of Flint about the seriousness and extent of the water contamination in attempt to save corrupt government money.

At what point does the primary concern of government officials become protecting their own pockets and fixing their own self-made corrupt financial issues? It doesn’t. The primary concern of any (community/ local, state, federal) government first should be protecting and ensuring the safety of its citizens, and this was not the case for the residence of Flint.

Works Cited

• Clarke, Kevin. “Flint Water Crisis Draws National Response As      Donations Pour In.” America 214.4 (2016): 10-11. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
• Egan, Paul. “E-mails: Snyder Could Have Declared Flint Emergency Sooner.”Detroit Free Press. USA Today Netwprl, 29 Feb. 2016. Web. 23 Apr. 2016. (Primary Source)
• Direct emails, concerning lead contamination levels, between Governor Snyder’s political parties.
• Flint Water Crisis.” Congressional Digest 95.3 (2016): 10. OmniFile Full Text Mega (H.W. Wilson). Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
• Kearly, Kendyl. “United States Infrastructure Is Failing Dramatically, But No One Is Paying Attention.” Bustle. 20 June 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
• Keller, Andrew. “United Way Estimates Cost of Helping Children $100M.” – WNEM TV 5. Meredith Corporation, 18 Jan. 2016. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.
• Semerau, Kat. “Evaluate Failing Infrastructure’s Role in Flint Water Crisis.” University WireMar 07 2016. ProQuest. Web. 23 Apr. 2016 .
• “Seriously? Some Flint Residents Can’t Get Bottled Water Because They Don’t Have an ID.” Clutch Magazine RSS. Sutton New Media LLC. Web. 23 Apr. 2016. 

   

Reflection Questions

1.) I titled this specific magazine article Flint Water Crisis Leaves City Drowning in Corruption, in order to capture the reader’s attention by playing with words to create a title that gives the reader enough understanding about what the paper is about but also keeps the reader guessing and wondering about exact argument and correlation between the two. The lede, in my article, establishes the main background information I utilized in my paper (the Flint Water Crisis) in order to establish my own, “bigger picture” argument about how government corruption and corporate greed influenced and escalated the Flint Water Crisis.

2.) The introductory section of my magazine article provides valuable background information and allows the reader to connect to the issue I established my argument on. This slow building of information allows the argument to develop and further invest itself with the outside source information I provided.

3.) In my magazine article I attempted to ease the reader into the argument by providing various types of evidence and background information before thoroughly explaining my specific argument.

4.) My New York Times magazine article establishes a clear track of clarity throughout the piece by utilizing and maximizing the relationship between the paragraph transitions. The transitions helped connect the information from the previous paragraph to the next paragraph and foreshadows the next advancement in my argument.

5.) Because of the specific audience of New York Times Magazines I was forced to provide enough background information on my given topic in order to properly inform the reader before establishing my argument.

6.) My preliminary research focused on the Flint Water Crisis ranging from the very beginning of the issue all the way to the current recovery. I then focused on developing an argument about how Flint’s corrupt government influenced and escalated the seriousness of the water contamination. To tie my argument into a recent argument of larger importance, I then related my specific argument to overall government corruption and failing infrastructure and the possibility of future catastrophes.

7.) In the Magazine Article itself I presented the readers with at least 6 outside sources and 1 primary source (direct emails between Flint’s Government Officials) along with 3 separate visual sources that all aid in the development of the argument throughout the article. The numerical representation exceeds the research expectations and I also fully utilized the specific outside sources to their maximum potential in aiding my argument.

8.) Before introducing any of my outside source material I clearly stated my own opinion and argument and then utilized the research and evidence from the outside sources to backup and further establish credibility of my own argument.

Specific Example: [Every year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) releases an Infrastructural Report Card establishing a specific letter grade for the current condition of different types of infrastructure found in the United States; we are currently failing, “The best grade the United States received was a B- for solid waste (solid trash removal), and the ratings just keep going down” (Kearly).]

9.) In order to create a persuasive magazine I utilized various forms of ethos, logos, and pathos to connect to the reader on a multitude of levels.

Specific Example of Ethos: [Every year, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) releases an Infrastructural Report Card establishing a specific letter grade for the current condition of different types of infrastructure found in the United States; we are currently failing, “The best grade the United States received was a B- for solid waste (solid trash removal), and the ratings just keep going down”] (Kearly).

Specific Example of Logos: [“This combination released lead anywhere from 25 to 1000 parts per billion into residents’ tap water. To put this in perspective, the Environmental Protection Agency allows only 15 parts per billion” (Semerau).]

Specific Example of Pathos: [At what point does the primary concern of government officials become protecting their own pockets and fixing their own self-made corrupt financial issues? It doesn’t. The primary concern of any (community/ local, state, federal) government first should be protecting and ensuring the safety of its citizens, and this was not the case for the residence of Flint.]

10.) The visual aids I specifically selected to include in my magazine article further reinforced my argument in a multitude of ways that just using words would not have fully captured. The image of the extreme difference in coloration of the Flint water and the Detroit water is quite an overwhelming photo and clearly represents the grotesque water contamination issue. The images of the direct emails between Flint’s government officials also provides a different view on the seriousness of the corruption in Flint.

11.) My first preliminary drafts I used to compile all of my researched information and get my main arguments out by crudely combining quotes, written text, and visual aids from a variety of sources. My following drafts I focused on the clarity of the argument and overall flow of the paper. The comments from my peers focused on defining the clarity of my main argument and forced me to narrow my argument and relate the outside information back to my main argument.

12.) The hyperlinks I utilized in my article were specifically chosen to help establish further credibility and ethos from outside sources. The hyperlinks bring the reader to the generic site of specific organizations in order to provide valuable information on the credibility of the companies I drew research from.

13.) Between each stage of development I read over the entirety of my magazine article multiple times in my head, as well as, out loud in order to ensure that the writing was free of grammatical errors and maintained an even flow and voice throughout. I also purposefully varied the sentence length, sentence structure, and punctuation in order to create a unique reading experience for the reader that would not bore them.

The New Jim Crow takes the form of mass incarceration.

You might think, “No, that can’t be!” But, how are we to know? When one thinks of slavery they think of the millions of African slaves that were beaten, dehumanized and tortured for 245 years in America. Slaves were considered property, had no rights and the women were often abused, raped, and exploited. How does prison compare? There are over 2 million incarcerated in the United States today and African Americans nearly constitute 1 million of that population. In the prison system you are nothing, you don’t have a name, you are an inmate. You are often forced to do things against your will. You are told when to eat and what you can eat, when you can go outside, when you can shower, you have no free will. Sounds like slavery to me. How did we get here? It began with Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” and this legacy continues on 40 years later with the cost of freedom for African American Males.

Since the launch of Nixon’s campaign public opinion has been shaped by news stories from popular media that depict certain minority groups as being associated with the use, transportation, and sale of illicit drugs, thus being responsible for the Nation’s drug problem. Print, television news media, negatively portray African Americans as being drug dealers and offenders reinforcing the exclusionary attitudes and practices targeted towards the group and contribute to the development of stringent policies that ultimately affect the group.

This system was designed to limit the freedom and opportunities of African Americans putting them back where they began, in a subordinate racial caste. In the words of Civil Rights advocate and writer, Michelle Alexander, “Since the nation’s founding, African Americans repeatedly have been controlled through systems of institutions such as slavery and Jim Crow, which appear to die, but then are reborn in a new form tailored to the needs and constraints of the time”. The “war on drugs,” the campaign started by Richard Nixon on June 18^th, 1971, has become the newest tool used to disrupt communities and generate today’s slaves, prisoners.

More than 300 years ago, many African males and women were shipped from their native home land and brought to European colonies as slaves. While slavery was “abolished” in 1865 by Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation that freedom provided an illusion. Constitutional amendments guaranteeing African Americans “equal protection of the laws” proved obsolete once a white backlash sparked during the Reconstruction era. African Americans once again found themselves powerless, as the Jim Crow system of segregation emerged.

According to political economist John Flateau, “Metaphorically, the criminal justice pipeline is like a slave ship, transporting human cargo along interstate triangular trade routes from Black and Brown communities; through the middle passage of police precincts, holding pens, detention centers and courtrooms; to downstate jails or upstate prisons; back to communities as rehabilitated escapees; and back to prison or jail in a vicious recidivist cycle”.

Beginning in the 1960’s the crime rate in the United States rose for a period of 10 years. Reasons for this spark in crime rates can be explained by the “baby boomer” generation, which is responsible for the spike in the number of young men in the fifteen-to-twenty-four age group. The media failed to mention the economic and demographic factors contributing to the crime rate. The surge of young men in the population was occurring at the same time that the unemployment rate for black men was rising significantly. Barry Goldwater laid the foundation for the “get tough on crime” movement in his 1964 presidential campaign. He expressed his fear of riots and black crime, ultimately dismissing Civil Rights activists concerns of the uprisings being directly related to the widespread police harassment and abuse. This in turn caused many black advocates to join the calls for “law and order” and expressed support for the same law makers who attempted and succeeded at depicting African Americans as disobedient criminals.

The Rockefeller drugs laws were enacted in 1973 when then Governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller decided to get tough on drugs. Under these laws, the penalty for selling two ounces (57 g) or more of heroine, morphine, raw or unprepared opium, cocaine, or cannabis or procession four ounces (113g) or more of the same substance, was a minimum of 15 years to life in prison and a maximum of 25 years to life.

Disproportionate arrest feeds the mistaken assumption that African American use drugs at higher rates than whites and this continues to serve as justification for racial profiling. Contrary to belief, “the typical cocaine user is white, male, a high school graduate employed full time and living in a small metropolitan area or suburb”. According to the government’s count, more than 24 million Americans, mostly whites, have used marijuana, cocaine, or some other illicit drug. Rising drug and crime rates in areas such as Harlem, led black activists to call for what would become known as the Rockefeller laws.

Racial Disparities

Both former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton played a vital role in the rise of mass incarceration. Prior to Reagan’s Anti-Abuse Act, was the introduction of crack to New York City. According to retired DEA special Agent, Robert Stutman, “With cocaine, the high usually onsets in three to six minutes, depending on the person. Crack’s high onsets in about ten to twenty seconds. It is also a far more intense high”. He also states that the crack organization was street based and New York drug peddlers mass merchandized cocaine.

Four years later, in 1986 Ronald Reagan signed The Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created the mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses. Sentencing for drugs were as followed, possession of at least one kilogram (1000g) of heroin or five kilograms (5000g) of cocaine became punishable by at least ten years in prison. The sale of five grams (.005kg) of crack led to a mandatory five year sentence as a response to the crack epidemic. These laws aggravated racial disparities in the prison population based off the fact that the drug offenders sentenced under the crack cocaine provisions were African American. The portion of African Americans in state prisons grew from 7 to 25% within the first 5 years of the 1986 act.

The Sentencing Project first alerted the public of the growing incarceration rate and disparities in 1990. It revealed that almost one in four black men between the ages of twenty to twenty-nine belonged to the criminal justice system, either in prison, probation, or parole. Although whites have a higher rate of illegal drug use, 60% of drug offenders sent to prison for drug charges in 1988 were African American. In the 1990’s drug offenses accounted for 27% of the increase in the number of blacks in state prisons, compared to a 14% increase for whites.

In 1994, Bill Clinton he signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which offered states billions in funding for new prisons if they reduced prisoners’ eligibility for parole. The law also established mandatory life sentences for those convicted of a third violent felony. According to Brennan Center for Justice, “By the end of Clinton’s presidency, the number of people in America’s prisons rose by nearly 60%”.

By 1995, The Sentencing Project reported that the rate for black men between the ages of twenty to twenty nine belonging to the criminal justice system had risen to one in three. While female incarceration rate remain lower than men, the fastest growing segment of the prison population is African American women.

Poor black men and women tend to live in economically segregated neighborhoods where the exit and reentry of inmates is geographically concentrated. As many as 1 in 8 of the male adults of these urban areas are sent to prison each year, while 1 in 3 can be sent to prison any given day.

Incarceration rates remained high or intensified by 1996 in neighborhoods around New York City that had the highest rates in 1990. Analysis from Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, Jeffrey Fagan, Associate Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Valerie West, and staff associate at Columbia University, Jan Holland concludes that incarceration is concentrated in New York City’s poorest neighborhoods and because of this they receive more intensive and punitive police enforcement as well as parole surveillance.

From 1980 to 2008, the number of people incarcerated in U.S prisons rose from 500,000 to roughly 2.3 million. Today the US holds 5% of the world’s population and 25% of world prisoners. African Americans constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million people incarcerated. Blacks are about eight times more likely to spend time behind bars than whites. Nationwide African Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrest, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prison.

About 14 million whites and 2.6 African Americans report using an illicit drug. African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, while 38% are arrested for drug offenses, and 59% are in state prisons for drug offenses. African Americans serve as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months).

Relevancy

While President Obama attempted to reverse drug laws that were put in place by former President this is not enough for the black communities. Many in the low income areas result to drugs, crime and violence because that is all that they have. Most drug dealers come from low income areas and often do not possess the simple skills or education to carry out a city or government job. Drug offenders are labeled as felons upon release from prison, which limits their ability to get a job and possibly change their lives. What is left for them to do? They often repeat this cycle of selling drugs because it is their only way to survive. The cycle will continue as citizens of low income areas struggle to find means to survive with low wages and the lack of education.

Reflection

1. Both the title and lede hint at the same thing. From reading both one could tell that the piece is going to be about prison and slavery. I would not argue that the title is creative or clever but more thoughtful and insightful. Being that this topic is very relevant and personal there was not much room for creativity, I felt that being straight forward would be best for this particular piece. It definitely leads the reader into the text while drawing comparisons and providing insight.
2. The introduction first plays on the readers thoughts by asking questions then goes into the comparisons between prison and slavery. In the introduction I attempt to locate the problem by comparing the two, while this does not prove how prison is the new form of slavery, it offers up room for readers to question the two institutions.
3. I believe I offer up a strong idea that can only be proved by evidence. My evidence relies heavily on history because it allows one to see the pattern that started with slavery and evolved into mass incarceration. For years systems have been put into place to limit the opportunities of African Americans starting with chattel slavery, expanding to the Jim Crow Era and segregation to today’s prison system.
4. I think all of the work is clear and it is all there one just needs to read and understand without being biased and passing judgment. I believe that is one of the main reasons why this issue is overlooked because many believe that it may be justified, but to the oppressed this issue is highly significant. As far as uniqueness I believe the work lacks that because again this is an extremely sensitive and relevant topic so I thought getting straight to the point would really drive the point home. I’m not sure what evidence of style means exactly but there is plenty of evidence there to support my claims.
5. NYT articles in my opinion are always informative. Depending on the issue being discussed, the written article can take many forms. If someone from the NYT were to write an article on this topic, and I am sure they have, I think their structure would be similar to mine. I was not able to just jump right into it I had to give the history of institutions that were designed to keep blacks down in order for the pattern to become clear. Some may still raise questions because I do not talk about every single thing relating to the issue I chose to focus on the more important issues. Overall, I think readers will get a clear sense of what I am talking about and will see the point I was trying to prove.
6. This topic is definitely a controversy. Many black activists focus on this issue for obvious reasons but, even president Obama reformed prison sentencing and (I’m not 100% sure if he did) reduce sentences of some current prison inmates. I believe my persuasive stance is clear in my lede and gets even further developed in my introduction.
7. I believe I met the expectations of the assignment. I may have had 5 secondary sources though.
8. Some direct quotes are integrated while other information from sources is included into the piece and credited after. Primary sources, which were statistics are directly stated and credited. I felt it was better to do it that way because there were so many stats that built on each other so it just made sense to list them all and credit the source after.
9. I think I used more ethos in this piece than anymore because it was important to me and I think my voice really comes out in my writing, especially in the last portion of the article
10. The first visual I chose was interesting at least to me. It shows chattel slavery, the Jim Crow Era and a young black inmate. This visual was perfect for my piece because all the institutions are relevant to the piece. The second visual was more focused on incarceration rates, which also furthers and backs up my claim.
11. My final article differs from previous versions and I owe that to the scrambling drafts workshop. I decided to keep the order that my partner put together.
12. I think the hyperlinks are appropriate and effective.
13. I may have lacked in the grammar area I proof read but I may have missed some things. I think the style was pretty basis: I started with history and brought it to the present. I think the incorporation of my sources provide credibility. I would not have been able to write this on my own.

The Public Can Only Support The Athletes Who Choose

To Not Attend

The Zika virus has been causing Brazil many problems and seems to be getting more and more dangerous. CNN wrote that the virus is “scarier than initially though.” Because the summer 2016 Olympics are being held in an area tormented by Zika, athletes have been speaking out about this controversy and contemplating whether or not they will travel to Brazil to compete in the upcoming games. The public cannot do anything about this situation. If athletes believe there is to high of a risk of getting infected, forcing those athletes to compete would be unethical. The public can do nothing about the athlete’s decision to not compete in the 2016 Olympics.

Zika was first isolated in Uganda in 1947 with a few cases reported in Asia and Africa. In 2013, there was an outbreak in French Polynesia, and now in 2015 there is an epidemic in Brazil. The Ades mosquito is what transmits Zika. Many people will be asymptomatic, but if symptoms do occur, the common ones are eye redness, fever, rash, and joint pain. The most dangerous symptom that involves women is microcephaly. Microcephaly is a neurological brain disorder that can be passed down from the mother to the fetus and cause abnormally small heads in children because of defective brain development. This side effect, shown in the picture below, could have spooked many people as pregnant women have been advised to not travel to the games and the World Health Organization has declared the Zika epidemic a public health emergency of international concern.

With the Zika virus troubling the Rio Olympics, how can the public react if some of the world’s top athletes do not compete? The Zika virus has been shown to be transmitted by mosquito, but recently the virus has become more dangerous because the Center for Disease Control, (CDC), has reported that it can be transmitted sexually as well. The virus has already spread to the United States with a total of 358 cases of Zika, some of them being acquired vector borne, but mostly have been travel associated. 31 cases have been reported where the person was pregnant, and seven cases where Zika was acquired sexually. Much of the news in America focuses on what’s happening with Zika in Brazil, very little of it shows what’s happening in regard to cases being reported here in the US.

The question is do athletes have an obligation to compete in the games because of respect for us as spectators and the Olympic games? No, and there is nothing we can do about that. Olympic athletes don’t owe us anything. They are the ones that have made tremendous sacrifices in their lives to get to the level they are at now. If they feel that Zika is to harmful for their bodies or to their future children and decide not to compete, the public can do nothing. Asking a person, whatever their status, to make them sacrifice their body or child because we want them to win a medal is unjust. It is not up to the public to decide whether Zika is dangerous and should affect the Olympics. There is not much known about the virus but athletes will take in the little information they know about the virus and make the best decision they think is right for them, not for us as spectators.

Some athletes who have spoken out are Hope Solo and Megan Musnicki. Hope Solo, the staring goalie for the United States Women’s national soccer team, told Sports Illustrated in February, “If I had to make the choice today, I wouldn’t go. Competing in the Olympics should be a safe environment for every athlete, male and female alike. Female athletes should not be forced to make a decision that could sacrifice the health of a child.”  Other athletes, like Meghan Musnicki who won gold in the women’s eight boat in 2012 said, “It’s never entered my mind not to go. It would be the pinnacle of my rowing career to represent the US again at the Olympic games. I’m not intending on being pregnant before the games or immediately following the games.”

As you can see, some athletes are concerned the virus is a threat and others are not fazed by it. Most athletes who are not worried about becoming pregnant any time soon are okay with competing. The virus affects the female athletes who are planning on starting a family within the near future, hence why American Officials have left the decision up to each individual athlete on whether or not they are going to compete in the games.

Sexual transmission can scare many athletes as well because like the Boston Globe states, “When they prepare for the Olympics, elite athletes put their lives on hold. Some take a leave of absence from college or career. Some put off weddings. Some wait to start families. So it is not a coincidence when some Olympians welcome babies a year or two after their Games.”  Once Zika has been cleared from a woman’s blood, Zika would not affect future pregnancies if she were not pregnant when she contracted the virus. But, it is unknown as to how long it takes for Zika to be cleared from a person’s blood. This takes the disease to a new level of danger because a woman that’s not pregnant can contract the virus and if Zika is still in her blood when she finally becomes impregnated in the future, her child could be affected with microcephaly or any other side effects of Zika. This is a main concern for some athletes that plan on starting a family in the near future.

CNN in April this year came out with an article stating that the virus has not only been linked to microcephaly but also, premature birth, eye problems, and other neurological conditions. Now information also states that Zika exposure can affect pregnant women in all trimesters, not just the first. As the clock ticks closer and closer to the Rio Olympics, more dangerous information is being discovered and reported regarding Zika.

With all the new information about Zika being more dangerous then first expected, if athletes choose not to compete, the public has no right to backlash them. They have worked their whole lives to compete in an Olympic games so they want to compete and will do whatever they can to compete, if they believe Zika is to risky, it is their decision to back out and the publics job to support them.

With Zika running wild in Brazil and a lot of information unknown about the virus, will all of the top female athletes in the world compete in the Olympics? If Hope Solo, considered one of the best keepers in the world, if not the best, doesn’t travel to the games, how will that affect the US women’s soccer team’s performance? The same goes for other athletes who have qualified and do not compete. The virus makes it a tough decision for athletes who have worked their whole lives to compete in Olympic games. I myself being an athlete wouldn’t know what to do. But whatever decision each athlete makes, the public needs to support them because they are doing what they believe is best for their safety and the safety of any future children. It is not fair to coerce an athlete to compete.

Zika is mosquito borne, similar to malaria. Malaria is more prevalent across the world so I looked up ways to prevent malaria and compared them to what Brazil is doing to try and stop the spread of Zika. UNICEF.org‘s big reason for prevention for Malaria is by mosquito nets being placed around all entrances and exits and especially making sure to be under a net when sleeping. Also, having air-conditioned rooms to drop temperatures and taking antimalarial medication as directed. Spraying your room before bed with a pyrethroid to kill bugs that may have come in during the day and covering any bare areas on your body with lose fitted clothing has also been suggested.

Brazilian officials have stated many times that the Olympic games will take place during August, which is Brazil’s winter, so the weather will be colder meaning there will not be many mosquitos out. They have also had many workers out spraying mosquitos and trying to get rid of standing water to eliminate breeding sites.

Brazil seems to thinks that the cold weather makes Zika a non-issue. Maybe if there was a vaccine for Zika it would not be an issue, but because there is no vaccine made to combat Zika, health officials are doing their best to educate the Brazilian population on their role in fighting Zika.

When wiping out the entire population of the Ades mosquito is almost impossible and the government’s main hope for containing Zika being the weather, will athletes think the precaution being taken are enough to compete?

With headlines of articles about Zika being titled, “Zika virus ‘scarier than initially thought’” from CNN, “Zika is Coming” from the New York Times, “Zika virus hasn’t been contracted in KC, but mosquitoes that can carry it are here” from the Kansas City Starr, and “The Rio Olympics are a mess 7 months before the opening ceremony” from Business Insider, how are athlete not supposed to be extremely worried about their safety.

With the media portraying Zika as a very threatening virus and the decision on whether to compete in the Olympic games left up to each individual athlete, the public can do nothing but hope that each athlete will make the best decision in this situation.

REFLECTION:

1. When researching Zika, I found this really good phrase that drew me into an article, “Scarier than initially thought.” After I saw that, I thought it would be a good title because Zika, being scarier than initially thought, is what is causing the athletes to make the tough decision on whether or not to attend. I tried to have a subtitle for my article but was getting very confused with the website. I wanted the subtitle to be, “the public can only support the athletes who choose not to attend.” I couldn’t figure out a way to make that go directly underneath the main title so I just put it right above the top picture. I believe my first sentence could be more creative. It does state the issue but could have been said in a more creative way.
2. The picture at the very top gives the reader an idea of what the article will be about and the opening paragraph sets the stage for the Zika virus affecting athlete’s decisions. I showed exigency by mentioning that the Zika virus is plaguing the summer 2016 games that are occurring in just a few months and stated how some athletes may not compete. My main focus on the article was that the public couldn’t force an athlete to compete but only support their decision so I made sure to put that in the first paragraphs to give the reader my controversy.
3. My idea and was that the public can’t pressure athletes to compete because they want them to win a medal or the USA to be dominant in the Olympics. I kind of developed it to saying that it wasn’t the publics right to decide if Zika was actually dangerous or not and if it should affect the Olympics. I gave information on how the media was portraying Zika, how other diseases mosquito transmitted were contained, and some of information about it to kind of say that it’s the athletes bodies, lives, and their future children’s lives at stake so they make the choice on competing. Plus, that there shouldn’t be pressure from the public because that is unethical.
4. The way I tried to organize my presentation was to state the issue, give background information on the Zika for readers who didn’t know much about it, state my opinion on the topic, and then give information recent information on Zika and how dangerous it could actually be. I thought that adding how malaria, another mosquito borne illness, was treated and how Brazil is just mainly banking on the weather to protect everyone was unique.

5. Like I said in the last question, I tired to give background information on Zika at first, then give recent information and always relate that back to the virus becoming more dangerous and that is why its making it a tough decision for athletes because it seems the close and closer the Olympics get, more sketchy information comes out. Some readers may think that athletes owe it to their country to compete in the Olympic games but I challenged that idea.

6. I changed my argument at the last minute. I was taking the stance that I was sick of Zika only affecting women and making female athletes choose whether or not to compete in the Olympic games. I went to the writing center three times and the people editing it said it was fine. The last person I went to on Friday said my article was very “sourcie.” I didn’t have much voice in my piece and that I was all over the place going from source to source. That is when I changed my argument and went the different route on the public can’t pressure athletes to compete. I wasn’t able to go to the writing center again because the final draft was due Monday. So I restarted my article and tried to change my focus to what the athletes are taking into consideration regarding Zika, how that could affect their decision to compete and what the public could do if they wouldn’t. I made my debate by stating that athletes don’t owe the public anything. I tried to bold main points of mine to make sure that stood out in the article. I used the research about Zika and the information that the public knows about it a big reason as to why athletes are questioning to compete.

7. I actually didn’t realize that we had to include all six secondary sources that we had listed that one-day in class. When the writing center guy told me that my article was very “sourcie,” I went in the complete opposite direction. I only included two different quotes from athletes stating their opinion, information from CNN, statistics from the CDC, and a quote from the Boston Globe. There are a few times where I could have stated this was from… for example, my information about malaria prevention, I got from UNICEF which could be another secondary source. I also used some titles from different articles about Zika to see how some media can be scarring people about the virus. A few were visuals. I tried more to add more of my voice and opinion on the issue instead of using sources like my first draft had.

8. Every time I utilized a source I tired to talk around it and give contextual information to introduce it or state information about it after the quote. I at first thought I needed to cite each quote but then realized that there are no page citations in an article.   I used some titles of articles about Zika to show what the virus’s reputation was in the media. The quotes I used were to give top athlete opinions on the issue and question how if Solo didn’t compete, how would that affect female soccer? The quote from the Boston Globe was to show that Olympians live abnormal lives. They put off a lot of things to train and compete so a virus like Zika, which could damage their future children, could cause major concern.

9. I used logos when comparing malaria versus Zika preventions. How with malaria there are actual things being done, like mosquito nets up, and medical treatment that could help. Zika has no medical help, no vaccine in the making, and Brazil counting on the weather as their main source of protection. I don’t establish much credibility. I could of stated how I am an athlete and what I would feel like in an Olympians situation with the games coming up. I established pathos by showing the picture of microcephaly and describing what is it. The CDC statistics are shocking because I never thought that many cases were already reported here in the United States. Plus, the quote from the Boston Globe can make the readers feel bad for athletes who have put off families to compete, and if they do compete and contract Zika, they could be left with an Olympic medal but also a child with microcephaly.

10. I thought having a picture of what microcephaly looks like was really important because most people haven’t seen a baby with the condition and it is a horrible condition to have. I didn’t really provide captions to my pictures, which could have been helpful. I wanted to show pictures of the Olympic athletes who gave the quotes. The picture of the soccer team winning gold I thought was important because if the starting keeper, the best keeper in the world, doesn’t attend, how will that affect the reining Olympic champions? The Brazilian officers spraying mosquitos in that suit I thought was a good pictures because they are in crazy protective suits that I thought I only see in movies. It shows again, how dangerous this virus is.

11. Like I said before, my first few drafts are completely different from my final one. Every in class peer review was using my old drafts. I went over with my Professor Barone taking the stance of women only being affected but completely changed my argument on the issue at the last minute so I had to re-due my whole article a few days before the final was due. Before I submitted my final draft I sent it to Alana and she gave me some good feedback on what to change or make clear because I was not able to go to the writing center. I thought the last man I spoke to at the writing center gave me good ideas to go with from the argument we came up with.

12. I used hyperlinks when I quoted from things that could be found online. Basically any information I got on a website that could be accessed easily relating to my topic. I also hyperlinked the articles with the headlines that I quoted.

13. Normally before I submit my final drafts I got to the writing center at least 4 times to get a few opinions on my article and different idea to go with my piece. They also correct my grammar and make sure everything is clear. This was the first time I wasn’t able to do that because the last guy I met with made me very concerned for my final draft. I reread my article a few times myself and had two friends read it over to see if there was anything unclear or if grammar mistakes were evident. I hope we caught all of them.