Homeless Families in America.

How do we take care of our most valuable and vulnerable assets.

For Kayla, 12, and her brothers, Kyle and Mitch ages 7 and 3, respectively, it happened after their mother had been in a car accident. Katherine, a single mother of three, living from pay check to pay check and sometimes having to take on two jobs to support the family, she was doing her best to raise her children as kind, understanding, and compassionate. Knowing her situation was volatile, she always took the opportunity to use it as a teachable moment, to show her kids that they could get through anything as long as they work hard and stick together. Then came the car accident. By no fault of her own, the course of her and the children’s life would be changed instantly and without warning due to an unaware driver running a red light and demolishing the car she was already struggling to pay for. A hospital stay and a damaged car beyond repair led to a set of circumstances beyond her control. Loss of a job and a pile of bills with no way to pay them, she barely had enough money to feed her kids let alone the money for bus fair or a babysitter so that she could go out and search for new employment. This downward spiral would soon lead to eviction and homelessness for this family of four. Without the time, money, or resources necessary to combat this overwhelming situation, she was forced to pack what clothes and essentials could fit into four small back packs and find some way to move forward.

As with so many families and children who become the victims of these unforeseen situations that are beyond their control, homelessness is just one unfortunate circumstance away. Serious illness, accident, or a death in the family can put many of these individuals at great risk of not being able to make ends meet when tragedy strikes. Due to the lack of affordable housing, decreasing government supports, combined with an unsteady job market, many of the challenges facing today’s families are forcing them to live a fine line between poverty and homelessness. Those most profoundly affected are the children in these families, the most vulnerable and in need of our help. It is our obligation to help take care of these children, again, the most vulnerable, most promising young lives the future has to offer. Many of these children are being raised by a single mother who is often times the victim of domestic violence, physical, and mental abuse. Left on their own to raise a family, many of these women must take on two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. Without an adequate support system, many are pushed to the brink by the stress and uncertainties caused by living pay check to pay check, meal to meal. All of this is unintentionally passed on to the children who witness and live through these struggles. Many reports show that the children who experience these type of unstable living conditions grow up with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, chronic health issues as well as mental health issues.

Although the federal government has taken great effort to bring down the number of chronically homeless individuals and veterans, children and families have not received the same benefits, and their numbers are rising. According to The National Alliance to End Homelessness, 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in 2015. Of that number, 206,286 were people in families, and 358,422 were individuals. About 15% of that population, 83,170, are what’s considered chronically homeless individuals. These chronically homeless individuals are what most of us see as the national face of homelessness, the unwashed, unkept, and foul smelling human beings commonly referred to as bums, or bag-ladies. In realty these homeless are commonly the victims of mental and physical abuse, sufferers of mental illness, and most times at the mercy of an alcohol and/or drug addiction. As a society, we have grown accustomed to the homelessness that surrounds us. Usually with little more than a glance, we walk by them, ignoring their pleas for help or spare change, pretending not to hear them. We pretend not to see them, looking down at our cell phones as if there something important pending or looking away as if something has caught our eye, any reason to not acknowledge or make eye contact with them.

However, amongst the four categories of homeless recognized by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, (Families, Veterans, Chronic, and Youth), it is Youth homelessness, a mostly silent and mostly invisible majority that posts the most surprising and staggering statistics. Of the numbers of homeless children ages 1-17, 51 percent are under the age of six, and the disheartening list goes on. 1 in 45 children, or rather 1.6 million kids will experience homelessness, and nearly 40 percent of the homeless population are under the age of 18. According to Covenant House, a privately funded agency providing food, shelter, and crisis care to homeless and runaway youth, 41% of homeless kids witnessed acts of violence in their homes, 36% indicated that someone in their family used drugs regularly, 19% reported being beaten with an object, 19% reported that they have endured sexual abuse, and 15% reported that someone close to them had been murdered. Of all the research conducted by various homeless advocacy groups, the Covenant House statistics concluded that without decisive action and the allocation of sufficient resources, the nation will fail to reach the stated federal goal of ending family homelessness by 2020, and child homelessness may result in a permanent Third World in America.

So much more can and must be done to help and aid these families and the children who are at great risk of the consequences that accompany an uncertain future. On April 29th over 180 women in five cities across the country slept on the streets with a goal of raising $345,000 for the homeless youth at Covenant House. The third annual Sleep Out: Mothers Edition included moms, grandmothers, aunts, foster moms — women who care about kids and want to make a difference. As stated by Covenant House President Kevin Ryan, “The amazing women participating in this Covenant House Sleep Out are sending a loud and clear message to homeless kids – that we stand with them in their struggles, and celebrate their courage, their resiliency, and their dreams for a better life, what a beautiful message to send as Mother’s Day approaches.”

There is no singular image to portray homelessness in this country. Within the four recognized categories of homelessness, Chronic, Families, Youth, and Veterans, individuals of all ages, geographic areas, occupations, and ethnicities are affected. To think of these homeless individuals as lazy, addicts, or have somehow brought this on themselves or that they choose to be homeless is an absurd and careless notion. This is not a choice and to assume so is ignorant and wrong.

As covenant house has stated, the issues surrounding childhood homelessness reach far beyond just providing hot meals, a warm shower, and a clean bed, there is a wide range of deep-seated psychological, physical, and economic reasons for youth homelessness. The list of unthinkable situations these children are put in are endless. It’s sickening, sad, and heartbreaking to know that these young lives, full of imagination, adventure, and hope are forced to experience the fear, shock, and dismay caused by homelessness and by no will or fault of their own. These homeless families with young children are at a risk different from other homeless and therefore must be treated differently for these needs and risks.

As for Katherine and her three children, Kayla, Kyle and Mitch, their situation has changed. But one wonders at what unnecessary cost. Through guidance and a strong support system that included help from homeless advocates, complete strangers willing to give of their time, money and energy, Katherine and her children were able to bounce back and return to a life of somewhat relative normalcy. A stable job, new car, and a secure roof over their heads has provided a foundation on which to rebuild from. However, the damage done through this experience has left emotional scars and damage that will not soon heal in the minds of these young children, and these experiences manifest themselves in heartbreaking ways. Kayla, the oldest of her siblings is most definitely experiencing the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and is displaying behavior most associated with a newborn baby. Her brothers, Kyle and Mitch are also showing similar signs of trauma, often waking up in the night screaming and crying due to nightmares, often asking their caring and comforting mother if they are at risk of becoming homeless again, fearing that it all could be taken away once more.

In the spirit of it takes a village, this crisis of family homelessness should be a call to arms for any and all individuals who not only have the time, money, and/or resources to contribute and help, but to those who have the empathy and compassion to make a difference in the lives of those living on the edge of poverty and homelessness, and the children who are the unwitting victims of a social system that contributes to living conditions far beyond the control or understanding of a child. The impact we can all have on a child’s sense of security and well-being is immeasurable. We are all capable of extraordinary behavior, going above and beyond when tragedy befalls our fellow human-beings. However, it is usually a catastrophic event out in the open that grabs us and pushes our instincts to help into action. With this problem, family and childhood homelessness, it is the most vulnerable and at risk members of our society who slip through the cracks and go unnoticed. We can all make a difference in the lives of these children. We are all somebody’s child.

Most people look at Bernie and say that he is too old to be the 45^th president. If elected president, he will be the oldest president at 75 years old. The first Google suggestion I received when typing in Bernie Sanders was what was his age. People also point out that before becoming a presidential candidate Sanders was a part of the socialist party before becoming a part of the Democratic Party. While age is important, people shouldn’t count him out of the race for president just because of his age. Like the saying “with age comes wisdom.”

Bernie Sanders has held a seat in political power since 1981 where he became the mayor of Burlington, Vermont. From 1981 till now He has been in some shape or form a part of the government. This alone shows that he has more than enough experience to have what it takes to hold his own in office. Even though his party has changed that does not mean his ideas and experiences changed. He still has the same motives for running as a presidential candidate as a democrat that he had when he was a socialist. With all of his experience he will make a fine president.

Bernie knew he wanted to make a difference politically from a young age. “A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.” Bernie said this quote at a young age. Bernie’s family was affected by the holocausts with many relatives on his father’s side being killed. It was at this moment that Bernie knew that politics where important and he wanted to be a part of them and make a difference for the better and to make sure that something like Hitler being elected does not happen again.

Bernie went to the University of Chicago and studied political science. While at the University of Chicago, Bernie was a part of a few groups/organizations that were involved with politics and political issues. It was through his school that Sanders joined the Socialist party. He was a part of many groups that wanted to change a lot of the laws that affected segregation. In 1962 he led the University of Chicago sit in where a group of students sat outside the university president’s office until he changes the rule that did not allow African American students to live in the same dorm buildings as White students.

Bernie attended the march on Washington in 1963 where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream Speech”. In the same year Sanders was arrested in Chicago for protesting with a large group of both White and African American people protesting against segregation. This was just one of the many run ins with the police Sanders has had trying to fight for what he believed to be right.

In 1980 he ran for mayor of Burlington, Vermont and was elected. Where he served as mayor for 4 terms. In 1990 He was elected as a representative in the House. Sanders served in the House from 1991 until he was elected to the Senate in 2006. He still serves the senate to this day.

All of these past experiences should prove to many people that Bernie is a competent candidate and has many important political  experiences in his past that have shaped who he his and what he stands for. They have also made him into the presidential candidate we all know today.

In an article posted by The Washington Post today, April 25, Sanders admitted that he will fight to the end even though he knows that in the end Hilary will most likely win due to her large lead in front of him. He said he intends to continue fighting in the race until he finds a reason to quit or the last vote is cast.

 

Reflection

1. The title shows what the article is about and grabs reader’s attention. The lead is creative and clever and draws readers into the text and provides insight with in the first few sentences. Also provides insight into the controversial issue.
2. The introduction begins with the controversial issue and goes into further detail as the paragraph goes on. Provide enough background information to understand the controversial topic.
3. The writer offers a strong idea and strong evidence that helps the writers point.
4. The writer shows clarity of thought and evidence of style in their writing.
5. The writer knows that New York Times readers will challenge ideas or underdeveloped ideas so they tried to be as clear as possible and explain everything.
6. The controversy is well researched and is developed into a persuasive argument. Much research has been done into topic.
7. The writer only used a total of four sources for their assignment.
8. The sources are brought up in the assignment by creating a hyperlink to the source in the sentence where the source is being used.
9. The writer does a good job persuading the reader about their topic and claims. The writer could have included more arguments for and against their topic.
10. The writer has two pictures in there assignment that shows visually what they are talking about.
11. The writer shows some improvement on the topic through the peer editing and group editing.
12. The writer uses hyperlinks to effectively cite where the information they are talking about is from.
13. There are no grammar issues and the writers attention to sentence structure helps establish the writers authority and credibility.

 

Today, one of the most controversial figures in the entire world is Donald Trump. For awhile, Donald Trump was known for being an aggressive, wealthy businessman who was constantly offending people with his public comments and actions. Trump is now the center of attention in the United States because he is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president.

 

In the past, Donald Trump has proven time and time again what an incredibly offensive and arrogant man he chooses to be. During his run for president, Trump has continued to show the country just how crazy he can be with numerous comments and political antiques that have left people stunned.

 

After the first GOP debate on August 6^th, Trump had some crude things to say about Megyn Kelly, a political commentator and journalist for Fox News and the host for the first GOP debate. The day after the event, Trump commented, “She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, … You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base.”

 

A year ago, if you told people that Donald Trump would own the majority of the Republican vote for president, most people would call you crazy. Today, many people say that there is no way that Trump will win the election, even though he is about to win the Republican nomination. The reality is, there is a good possibility that Trump can end up winning the election. However, there is a good chance that his presidency would bring a great deal of turmoil and hardship on the United States. If elected president, Donald Trump will ruin America.

 

Before we dive into how Donald Trump is the worst choice for president, we should try to understand why Trump is in this promising situation of becoming the Republican presidential candidate. The main thing Trump was known for before he started running for president was suing people.

 

Trump would always threaten and tarnish people on social media but, whenever someone would say something slightly offensive about him, he would try to publicly humiliate the person by filing a lawsuit against them for slander. Throughout the presidential race, Trump has basically been doing the same thing but, against the other candidates; which, unfortunately, is politics.

 

The reason Trump has such a far lead in the presidential race is because he is a great politician. He would constantly take jabs at Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio but, whenever they would retaliate he would act like the victim and deny that he ever slandered anyone. People love watching Trump because he is entertaining and unpredictable; people want to see what he is going to do next. The only problem is, with all this attention, Trump ended up becoming a very popular candidate for the white, not-so-bright voters.

 

Whenever Trump promoters give their reasons as to why they love Trump, they always give vague reasons that make him a great politician but, no hard evidence or reasoning that would make him a great president. These voters say things like “He’s going to make America great again,” or “He’s a great businessman, he’ll run the country like he runs his business.”

 

Since Trump is so far ahead in the polls, he must share some attributes with past successful, American politicians. In 1987, David G. Winters, a Psychology professor at Wesleyan University, conducted a study on the appealing qualities of past U.S. presidents from Washington to Reagan. Winters found out that many of the past presidents have held the constant of being natural leaders with the ability to charm the American people with their unique, personal appeal and performance. To Winters, the charismatic leader has, “a certain quality of personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.”

 

Even though Donald Trump is a horrible person, he is a natural leader. Trump has been making hard decisions his entire life. In 1971, he was given control of his father’s real estate company at the age of 25. Since then he’s been in charge of hundreds of business proposals, philanthropic endeavors, and entrepreneurial ventures that most leaders have never even been exposed to. These high-stress, high-stakes experiences have made Trump into the confident, “don’t hold back” cowboy he is today, and people seem to admire him for it.

 

Trump is a powerful leader and he draws a crowd pretty much everywhere he goes but, being a good leader doesn’t make you a good fit to be president. Many of the voters really have no idea what they’re talking about when they are voting for Trump; they simply admire the illusion of Trump as a confident and cunning politician. However, if Trump becomes president, we cannot change our decision once he swears into office once we realize he is a complete fraud.

 

Trump’s idea of a perfect America would be a world power with a strong military that fights its own battles and helps no other country. That idea is called Isolationism, the belief that it is in one’s best interest to take care of one’s own problems without worrying about anyone else’s problems.

 

Trump has gone on the record to say that he will isolate the United States by getting rid of their affiliation with treaties like NATO and NAFTA. Trump also wishes to stir the trade waters with countries like China and Mexico by threatening to cut off negotiations with the countries and start so called, “Trade Wars.” He wishes to take the sweatshops out of these countries and bring those factories to the United States. “I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan. The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.” Donald Trump made these comments in July of 2015, during his trip to the U.S.-Mexican border.

 

This is incredibly offensive. Donald Trump believes just because he cuts ties with countries like Japan and China, that automatically makes room for jobs in America. The “jobs” Trump is referring to are jobs in sweatshops that pay their workers next to nothing, and Trump just assumes that these jobs will simply transfer over to the United States and members of the Hispanic community are so poor that they will just flock to these minimum wage jobs as soon as they get the chance.

 

Donald Trump has notoriously been known for being a bigot and a racist. Before and during his run for president, Donald Trump has demonstrated to the public that he is a racist. Donald Trump treats each racial group as a monolith. He treats each race as if they are in their own world where everyone in that race only acts according to their stereotypes. Instead of acknowledging that there’s as much variety among white people as there is among Muslims, Latinos, and black people, Trump puts each race into their own category.

 

Trump has had many opportunities to prove to the voters that he is not the prejudice chauvinist people think he is. The most prominent being the three times he danced around the question of whether or not he renounced the support of former KKK leader David Duke during a televised interview on CNN. Each time Trump was asked about white supremacy or David Duke, he neither confirmed nor denied any affiliation with David Duke or any white supremacy group.

 

Trump’s exact words were, “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know — did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”

 

Trump knew he was lying but, he also didn’t want to deny anything that would come back to bite him if the public found out the truth. He did not want to look like a supporter of white supremacy but, he also wanted the white supremacist’s vote on Election Sunday. Apparently, Trump decided votes were more important than being associated with the KKK.

 

A major reason Donald Trump’s presidency will most likely harm the reputation of the United States is because Trump is a dangerous man. During his run for president, Donald Trump has said and done some pretty insane things. Even though Trump has changed many of his political views throughout the presidential race, he has stayed true to his beliefs on torture, war, and how to deal with outside threats.

 

Today, President Obama is firmly against torture but, Trump has made it clear that he wants to reinstate all forms of torture, especially waterboarding, and went on record to say he wants to implement “much worse forms of torture.” When talking about national security, Trump talked about how America looked weak because we didn’t torture our prisoners and he went on to say “We have to beat the savages.”

 

Apparently, Trump has big plans for the military; namely, making the military stronger and more aggressive towards hostile countries. Many military officials have spoken out about how they would not follow through with any of the wicked plots Trump has planned for the military. Trump responded by suggesting he would force the military to carry out his objectives regardless if they agreed with the plan or not.

 

When asked about North Korea, Trump said he would consider giving nukes to South Korea and Japan to fight their own battle with North Korea instead of having America get involved. This involves Trump’s whole isolationist movement that has the United States refusing to help any other countries in need; so instead, Trump just wants to give the victim country giant, dangerous weapons and have them deal with the situation on their own.

 

Aside from fully supporting torture and possibly giving other countries nukes, Trump publicly promoted a war crime on Fox News where he said in order to stop the terrorists, “We have to take out their families; We have to go after their wives and children.” If Barrack Obama, or someone we would expect more out of, said something like this on national television, it would be a huge deal, but it was Donald Trump who people expect to say something this insane.

 

If Donald Trump becomes President, he will ruin America in one way or another. Trump may start a war through offending a hostile country, using the military to carry out heinous war crimes, or by isolating the United States and leaving less powerful countries to fend for themselves. America cannot have a President who is a racist that doesn’t respect each race equally because America is the land of freedom and equality. If Donald Trump is elected President, we have no idea what he is going to do but, many signs point to bad things.

 

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?

 

I really tried to think of a title that would encompass the main point of my article as well as properly resembling a title one would see in the actual New York Times. The title draws the audience in because of how current the topic is, who the topic may affect, and the wit behind the title; using Trump’s slogan against him is pretty clever, if I do say so myself. Once a reader reads a witty title like this, about a character like Donald Trump, most likely, they’re going to be drawn in by it and forced to find out what is in the article.

 

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

 

The intro section of the article basically lays out how the argument fits the title and how the argument will be expanded upon within the article. The article has four sections before it hits the main argument and the sections really lead up to show exactly how awful of a person Trump has been in the past, as well as present reasons why Trump will be an awful President.

 

[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.?

 

A lot of people may think Trump is unsuitable to be President but, I believe my article shows the stage past that, the part that people think can’t happen, that is, what will happen if Trump becomes President? This article helps expand the idea around what exactly Trump may or may not do if he gets in the White House.

 

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

 

Personally, I know I did my very best to present the argument “If Trump becomes President, he will ruin America.” I know it is an aggressive agreement but, if Trump does end up as president, something insane or drastically wrong is bound to happen and the purpose of my article is to startle readers to a point of realization that this idea makes sense. In my article, I do  y best to touch all the sides of Trump that people should see in order to make an informed decision on who they are voting for in the upcoming election.

 

[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?

 

It’s difficult to create the perfect argument and I know my argument is too strong but, there is a give and take between how accurate an argument is and the ability of the article to draw in readers. One wishes to develop an argument that is both well-thought-out and intriguing to an outside audience but, it’s tough when a writer has to be both accurate in all the material involved in the article as well as attractive to others. I tried to organize my material in a way that started with the light stuff at the beginning and ended with the heavier stuff that will leave the reader stunned.

 

[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?

 

 

My main job in writing this article was to get the facts when it came to what exactly Trump has done and said in the past to help prove he is an unsuitable presidential candidate. Hopefully, by gathering enough facts and making enough significant points I can show my audience just how dangerous Trump can be with the power of the country behind him.

 

[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? ).

 

In total, I believe I had 7 or 8 secondary sources and the required scholarly and primary source. I included an image at the beginning of my article but, media wasn’t really required when talking about Trump because it is more about what Trump says that captures his outrageousness rather than any image. The Primary research included the exact transcript of the Fox News interview where Trump said we have to take out the terrorist’s families, which I hope audiences will be shocked by the most.

 

 

[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 did my best to use the primary and secondary sources together as ways to show people of Trump’s madness. I really tried to help make the flow of the article great, where one subject naturally transgresses into another subject without people stopping and saying, “Why is this here?”

 

[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 really tried to persuade audiences with common sense and fear. I tried to show the ridiculous things Trump has done repeatedly in the past and the terrible things Trump is capable of if elected president. I really gave a strong effort to show the ethical and logical reasoning behind my argument by displaying the type of immoral man Trump is and why we cannot have an untrustworthy man like Trump making all the decisions for a world power.

 

 

[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 really tried to focus on the content and wording of my article to make the most sense out of my argument but, the reason I chose that specific photo of Trump because it was ironic in a way. Trump consistently will throw-up a peace sign at many of his rallies and public events but, I find it funny that a man who uses a sign for peace so often is one of the most aggressive and hostile presidential candidates in American History.

 

 

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

 

In my first couple drafts, I didn’t end very strong with my conclusion but, in my final draft, I really tried to end with a summarization and the full meaning of the article. I would continuously change and edit my article based on the feedback from the different activities from class and I really did my best when going from the 800 to 1250 to 1600-word draft to change things around in order to make the most logical and convincing article about why Trump should not be president as I could.

 

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

 

I did my best to encompass hyperlinks within the article in place where I used direct quotes or facts or in spots where readers may want to learn more about the subject or if they don’t know exactly what the article is discussing. The hyperlinks in my article are effective because they provide the most specific information on every topic I hit on within the article.

 

[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?

 

The overall structure of my article involves correct grammar and proper style and sentence structure to help keep readers reading the article and understanding that I have done my research. If a reader identifies any errors or any repetitiveness in an article, it is typical that he or she will stop reading the article or cease to believe any of the article’s content; so, it is important for the authors to be through and knowledgeable when writing their article.

Concussions in the NFL are a major problem. It is pretty hard to find a player in the league who goes their entire career without ever having one. Excessive head trauma can lead to a condition called Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). This condition causes many health issues that can make former players’ lives miserable. A major problem with CTE is that it increases the suicide rate by over 30%. While repeated concussions can ruin a player’s life, should the NFL do anything to stop them?

Research on the human brain for damage caused by playing football only started recently. When it was first discovered, it was not widely accepted. In fact, ESPN states that the NFL only recently came out and accepted that playing football and having CTE are related. According to the Boston University CTE center, one of their first studies came out and revealed that 87 of 91 former NFL players had CTE. While this number is scary, there are certain things that should be noted. To start of, since this was one of the first studies, the only brains that had to test were those of players who had donated them. Players would’ve only donated their brain if they thought something was wrong.

Secondly, since these are former football players, it can be assumed that they played quite a while ago. So while there is a direct correlation between football and CTE, equipment was different and not as safe as it is today. If the study was done on players today, which is not possible, the numbers would most likely be lower.

So what’s the danger in CTE? What makes it such a problem?

CTE has many symptoms. Many of them would be expected from traumatic brain injuries such as memory loss or confusion. The problem is there are many others such as depression, anxiety, suicidality, parkinsonism, and dementia. Yes, players are more likely to kill themselves because they had repeated concussions. Many players cannot enjoy their lives after football because they are too anxious and can’t think correctly. Many players have even confessed to not remembering their children’s names at times. As if all this wasn’t bad enough, then there are all the secondary problems. When people get anxious and depressed they tend to resort to drugs and alcohol which created a whole new set of problems. Nate Jackson and Thurman Thomas two former players who experience these symptoms everyday.

Former Buffalo Bills running back Thurman Thomas recently spoke about the effects of his concussions while playing in the NFL. He spoke at a concussion awareness event. Thomas spoke about how he has mood swings and “On so many days, I have to apologize to my family for them”. As he was speaking to the crowd, he had to stop several times because he couldn’t focus and forgot what he was talking about. Thomas also spoke about how he carries a notebook around everywhere he goes that describes what he is doing, just in case he gets lost or forgets. These are clear sign of brain damage after a 13 year NFL career.

Nate Jackson played in the NFL from 2003-2008. He had multiple concussions and often times played through them without telling team doctors. He says this is necessary because if you start missing time, you will be cut from the team. Now retired, he talked to Sports Illustrated about the impact the concussion had on him. He says “I am sad and I am depressed and suicidal thoughts, like raindrops, come down from the sky on seemingly sunny afternoons.” He then says that after doing it all and seeing the effects, if the NFL were to call him and he were able to get a job playing football, he’d do it again.

Yes, he’d do it again!!

Why would players put themselves in harms way even though they know the danger? Well the way Nate Jackson explains it, many players have no other skills, therefore football is all they have. Therefore, the NFL has to do a better job protecting the players. But at what costs? Should the game change? Should it just be better equipment? What has to be done?

The game of football, especially the professional game in the NFL, is a brutal game. You have muscular men that weigh more than 200 pounds in many cases running full speed into each other with the intention of hitting as hard as possible. It is only natural that injuries are going to occur. According to Frontline, over the last few years, concussions have been going up in the NFL. This is due in fact to the fact that they are being closely monitored. Before 2012, players were only diagnosed if they told someone about the symptoms. Now, there are officials on the sidelines looking out for players with concussions. This is part of the effort by the NFL to make the game safer and not have players have long lasting concussion symptoms.

People watch football for this brutality. America loves how rough this sport is. There is a reason the Super Bowl is always one of the most watched events on TV every year. So how can the NFL make the game safer without losing money? That’s they key to making football safer for players.

In 2014-2015, the NFL made $12 billion dollars, according to CNN money. Yes, that’s billion with a B. Every year, the amount of money they make increases. As football gets even easier to watch with the increase in technology, the NFL’s revenue goes up. If suddenly players stop hitting hard and can only hit certain regions of the body, as the NFL has proposed, then the amount of people watching will drop and the NFL’s revenue will follow. Anyone who doubts this should watch the video at the bottom of this paragraph showing some of the most entertaining NFL hits. There will be no more argument on what makes football so popular. Therefore, what can the NFL do. It’s already made it illegal to use the head/helmet as a weapon when tackling. Should they just say this is as safe as football is getting or continue changing the game?

NFL players know the risks they take by playing the game. Even before testing for CTE began, it was fairly obvious that smashing your head into someone else’s body wasn’t the healthiest thing. Now-a-days, there is no excuse for NFL players to say they weren’t warned. There is so much data to show the dangers of football. Therefore, if players know the dangers shouldn’t they be responsible for whatever happens to their bodies?

There are plenty of people in the world who would love the opportunity to play football. In addition, there are plenty of people in the world who would love to be paid millions of dollars to play football. A recent Business Insider study found that the average salary in the NFL is $1.9 million per year.  If as a player you aren’t willing to put your health on the line for $1.9 million dollars per year, then don’t play the game. The game of football shouldn’t have to adjust to the players.

Many players have retired young recently. Players such as Calvin Johnson have spoken to media companies such as ESPN and said that they retired early due to the fear of what repetitive concussion would do to their long term health. Johnson was scheduled to make $12.9 million in the upcoming season. Yet he stepped away. Many players have followed Johnson’s lead. This is what should be happening. Instead of ruining the game for all those who come after them, players should just step away from the game and allow those who want to play to step in.

Players in the NFL complain about all the risk to their health. Yet there are plenty of other professions where people put their health on the line for a lot less. The Houston Chronicle reports that police officers only average $54,230 a year.

Yet everyday they put their life on the line they risk the same concussion or broken ankle that NFL players risk once a week for half a year. They also have the very real risk of being shot.

The average salary for a coal miner is $50,000. Yet everyday that they go down into the mine, they risk not coming up. They also risk getting terrible diseases in addition to the same concussion that NFL players face when they bang their head.

Across the country there are plenty of industries that are more dangerous than the NFL where the risk to the worker’s health is greater than the NFL. If people can do these jobs or decide to walk away if they don’t want to take the risk, why don’t NFL players do the same?

All this isn’t to say that the NFL should just look the other way. In fact, they haven’t. According to CNN, due to a player lawsuit, the NFL has set up a fund that pays NFL players after their careers are done. The fund was set up as part of the settlement between the NFL and the more than 5,000 former players. This fund has an unlimited amount of money in it. Each player may receive payments up to $5 million dollars. The payments depend upon test results and doctor diagnosis. These payments are similar to pensions that are seen in other American industries such as law enforcement. In law enforcement, if you are injured and as a result cannot have a future career, you are given a certain amount of money so you can live your life. The NFL has done the same. If concussions or head injuries are the reason you cannot move on in life after playing football, the NFL gives the former players an amount that they deem fair in order for them to be able to live their lives.

Some former players still think the NFL is being unfair. Nate Jackson is one of these players. He told Sports Illustrated in his interview that the fund is unfair because ultimately the NFL decided how much money a player receives. Although test results are used to decide how much money each player gets, there is no actual test to date that can detect how much brain damage a player has received. Therefore, according to Nate Jackson, it is unfair the way the NFL distributes the money.

Ultimately, the discussion of whether the game should be safer or players should suck it up and take the money comes down to the fans. Most fans would rather see brutal hits and don’t think of the player’s health. Fans represent dollar bills to the league as the majority of the $12 billion the NFL sees yearly is from fan’s pockets. If fans start demanding a safer game, the NFL will make the game safer. If fans make it clear that they want to continue seeing a brutal game, as they have done, then the NFL will make the game as safe as possible without changing the brutality of the game. Overall, the concussion numbers will not change much unless the game changes. The only thing the NFL can do for the players without changing the game is educate them and make their post-NFL life as easy as possible.

 

 

 

Reflection:

1. The title and lede let the reader know what it going on. It introduces them to the topic/controversy of concussions in the NFL. It lets them know that there is a problem and a hint at what can be done. The rest of the article goes further in depth.
2. The introduction lets the reader know that there is a problem. It starts to introduce the problem and introduces CTE. It lets the reader know that the NFL can do something but leaves suspense regarding whether the NFL should do something.
3. The writer lets the reader know that there is a problem, but it whether it should be fixed is a different story. This is the idea presented. The facts are backed up with evidence and both sides of the argument are presented. Overall, I believe it is a strong argument.
4. The writer shows a pretty unique argument. It is not the typical argument of what should be done, but lets the reader choose what they want after presenting both sides and explains that only the fans can truly make a different in which path the NFL chooses to go.
5. The writer definitely presented the ideas well and they were not vague. The writer’s intention is to present all sides of the problem in order to avoid questions left unanswered. The material is organized in a way so all relevant information is grouped together and there is no jumping around the article.
6. The research is definitely there. There is a plethora of information regarding concussions. The author presented the necessary information without throwing too much information at the reader. The debate the author uses is backed up with all the information needed and is clear.
7. There are more than 6 secondary sources and several visual images. There is also one video to help the readers understand what the author is referring to. There are two primary sources. One is the BU CTE center, which provides the studies. The other is a stat sheet showing the concussion numbers by position and by season. The sources help the writer back up his argument and take it one step further.
8. The sources that the author puts into the article help him further advance his argument. They are not awkwardly placed and flow with the idea. They definitely help advance the argument.
9. The writer tries to persuade his audience to consider his claims by trying to get on a more personal level with them. He talks about how cops and coal miners compare to NFL players. It is fair to assume that many of his readers would be from this class of Americans. By making it more personal, he hopes to get through to them.
10. The reading visual helps gain the attention. The picture of the CTE affected brain right before talking about CTE will get the attention of the reader. The video of hard NFL hits helps prove his point that the hits are what people want.
11. The article improved with all the commentary received in class. The previous TED talk also helped him improve his argument and make it more clear what to talk about. The drafts which were read by class mates definitely helped him improve the writing.
12. The hyperlinks are effective and show the reader where the writer got his ideas from. There are not too many and they are not too long. The hyperlinks only show relevant information, instead of showing the reader every piece of information seen during the research.
13. I didn’t find any issues with the grammar in this article. The style was good. There were long sentences and paragraphs and short one sentence paragraphs as well. The different lengths should help the reader engaged.

“Throw a vote out there to the country and let the citizens decide, what is my tolerance for pain to be free? And what is my tolerance for pain to be safe?” Randy Zelin – Criminal Defense Attorney.

 

The words of the Defense Attorney were spoken in an interview on CBSN in mid-February 2016.  The intention of the quote was used to address the difficult choice this generation will face surrounding the Apple vs. FBI controversy.  Although this specific case is truly a re-hashing of the debate between national security and privacy, the current world situation is leading to a more hasty finality then it should.  With the rise in terrorist activity, ultimately resulting in catastrophes such as the Paris attacks of November 13^th 2015, the San Bernardino attack of December 2^nd 2015, and the Brussels bombing of March 22nd, 2016, a change in governmental policy is imminent. More specifically, a change to how strong public encryption should be and just how safe it is to allow total governmental access to personal and private systems. It is evident from analyzing the critical arguments on both sides of the case that this issue needs more time to be debated and thought out to make the best choice in how we move forward as a nation. My fear is that, one day historians may look back on the outcome as a grievous error.

 

In a quick summary of the Apple vs. FBI situation, Apple has been asked by the FBI to assist in the investigation of an IPhone, which was a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.   Apple promptly surrendered all the information they possessed on the phone; however, one of Apple’s promises to their consumers is to completely secure encryption in all of its systems.  This is where the problem originates. For a system to be completely secure, it must not have any access points other than the one intended for its primary user.  Furthermore, the primary access to Apple devices has a 10 attempt allotment for a 4 digit passcode, meaning, that after 10 failed attempts the device will auto erase all information contained within the phone. What all of this security essentially  adds up to is that Apple does not have access to this phone via a backdoor in its system, and that a computer cannot be used to test the approximate 10,000 different combinations that the passcode could be.  As a result of this, Apple has been asked to create a “master key” program that would allow law enforcement to gain access to the phone.

 

In an interview by ABC News, Tim Cook (Apple’s CEO) discussed the reasons Apple is fighting this request to create the software proposed. Tim Cook explained that software such as this will act as a “software equivalent of cancer,” which will break down the encryption written into the IOS system that Apple’s products run on. This software will likely be used more than one time.  Although authorities must be allowed to act on court supported investigations in a timely manner, there exists several issues within the FBI’s master key request.  One of the major issues with a master key program is its ability to be stolen, which raises the question, how secure can protection be to protect a dangerous system like a master key program?

 

In an article released by The Economist entitled, “When Back Doors Backfire,” the writer uses an issue Juniper Networks faced in 2012 when it had an error exported in its secure networking systems. Juniper designed and currently offers secure network systems which allow businesses and government to communicate through the inter web securely.  However, it was discovered that one of their systems had an unintentional weakness. This weakness went unfound for some time and allowed hackers from unknown agencies to listen in on secret conversations.  The reason this example is relevant, and directly connects to the concerns of Tim Cook is that even companies whose primary goal is to provide encrypted programing can make very exploitable mistakes.  Another point that should be addressed is the vast number of entities that would be seeking a master key program or a back door.

 

Late April, CNN aired a debate about the issue of the FBI’s request of Apple which by that time had already been in the national spotlight.  This debate was between John McAfee, an American antivirus designer and businessman, and an Agent of the FBI; Steve Rodgers.  McAfee, who takes the position against this request to Apple, points out his perspective and experience with backdoor or master key encryption.  McAfee attacked the FBI’s request saying that the FBI, who had just recently been hacked by a teenager, cannot be counted on to keep a master key safe from hackers both local and overseas.

 

McAfee stands on the grounds that a back door, or master key program results in an even greater threat to the American people, including their bank accounts and private information.  The primary concern is the very real and present danger of cyber threats from other nations as well as hacker’s within the country.   An important term McAfee used in his argument that may not be known to some is “black hat hackers,” which is a term used to identify certain individuals who use hacking for nefarious reasons. This differs from “white hat hackers,” who are typically paid by a company to hack, or try to hack into their systems for the goal of improving security and test for weaknesses.  There is a third term used in identifying hackers and that is “gray hat hackers,” which are those who hack for curiosity, fame and less than criminal yet intrusive purposes.

 

The contributors to the academic article, “Why Computer Talents become Hackers” would agree to the credibility of McAfee’s fear. This article covers a sociological case study on how it is that young individuals, predominantly young men in their twenties make that change from talented gray hat hackers to black hat.  The academic article draws from case studies in both the US universities and schools in China for the intent of creating theories that best explain what drives or prevents this change.  One of the most predominate factors preventing these hackers from turning to the criminal side of hacking is self-morals; perceived or taught notions of right and wrong.  It is evident by this article how dangerous twenty year olds can be acting alone, or in the interest of an opposing government.

 

So far this blog has outlined the stances against the FBI’s request. However, referring back to the McAfee and Rodgers debate, Steve Rodgers provides some of the key concerns of the FBI which should not be overlooked.  Rodgers debated the FBI’s grounds for requesting the timely support of Apple, and the concern for national security due to the current war on terrorism. Rodgers discusses that the potential information obtained from devices such as the phone will be useful in the protection of the American people and stopping future attacks.  This of course takes into account the other phones currently held by authorities that may lead to more individuals or groups that mean to do the US further harm.  Furthermore, agencies like the FBI should always, with a court order, be able to access any device for investigative purpose.

 

There are no grounds to argue that the FBI doesn’t have the best intentions for the US citizens. The fear of losing privacy rights and governmental abuse should have equal weight in debating what policies should follow the outcome of this case and cases to come.

In the CBSN interview with Randy Zelin, which was quoted at the beginning of this blog, a public concern is discussed in direct relation to the potential for this master key encryption to infringe on the privacy rights of American citizens. The underlying concern within this perspective is the fear of this case setting a precedent for future governmental policies.  This could allow surveillance programs too much power that could lead to more court orders in the future with similar demands.  The article “The insecurity of Innovation” contradicts this fear, by outlining just how involved government oversight has been in securing the internet while striving to not impose upon civil liberties.  This article also displays that with care, governmental policies and public interest can work together to achieve safety.

 

Presently, the FBI has dropped the request for Apples compliance because they have gained access to the phone, after hiring an undisclosed team or individual to hack into the phone. This outcome is both a success for the US citizens, and a threat to Apple consumers.  Because the phone was successfully hacked, that can only mean there is an exportable error in the security of the phone which will likely have the interest of Gray and Black Hat hackers alike.  Thankfully, this outcome provides a needed pause in this battle of privacy and national security, which may allow regulatory bodies, the public and the tech industry to decide the best way to solve this complex issue.

 

 

 

 

References

Hart, C., Jin, D. Y., & Feenberg, A. (2014). The insecurity of innovation: a critical analysis of cybersecurity in the United States. International journal of communication [Online], 2860+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA398630017&v=2.1&u=nysl_ce_syr&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=5b67f8e84df64a2c87b1abf35cc1ac9d

 

Tech giant Apple is resisting a court directive that it help the FBI gain access to the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, the deceased San Bernardino jihadist who, with his wife, killed 14 people in San Bernardino on December 2. (2016, March 14).National Review, 68(4), 6+. Retrieved from   http://bi.galegroup.com/essentials/article/GALE%7CA444400255/18e9194b2f6d6da1f7be4374d2f5338d?u=nysl_ce_syr

 

When back doors backfire; internet security. (2016, Jan 02). The Economist, 418, 10. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1752811600?accountid=14214

 

Xu, Z., Hu, Q., & Zhang, C. (2013). Why computer talents become computer hackers.Association for Computing Machinery.Communications of the ACM, 56(4), 64. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1354443069?accountid=14214

 

K. Z. (2016, March 28). The FBI Drops Its Case Against Apple After Finding a Way Into That iPhone. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-drops-case-apple-finding-way-iphone/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGqLTFv7v7c  Published on Feb 25, 2016  Description: He (Tim Cook) addressed the high-tech giant’s public battle with the FBI over Syed Farook’s iPhone                     Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqI0jbKGaT8  Published on Mar 1, 2016  Description: John McAfee squares off against former FBI officer Steve Rogers about the iPhone backdoor demanded by the FBI. Steel cage match.                                                                                               Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4kYfedXt58  Published on Feb 17, 2016  Description:  Apple has declined to help the FBI investigation into the San Bernardino, California, shooters, saying it jeopardizes all Apple users’ privacy. The fight from Apple may go as high as the Supreme Court. CBSN contributor Randy Zelin breaks down the next steps for the Apple-FBI feud.                                                       Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

http://www.juniper.net/us/en/                                                           Description: Juniper networks home page.                                                          Retrieved 4/25/2016.

 

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

Professor, before you ask yourself… the answer is yes, I did talk in differing prospective (I.e Third person) out of fun and embracement of critiquing my work.  I learned a lot form this class and look forward to the finale reflation.  I find myself picking on talk radio hosts now, because a lot of them don’t back up statements they make.. I’m sure I’ll be doing them same for every blog I read moving forward.

[1] The title of the blog is captivating to the audience in the way that “a moment,” signifies that the reading will be brief. When you see “Literature Review,” or “Research” in the title, that may be less attractive to the reader due to it’s length. I mention the “wiser minds,” because the articles discusses Apple and the FBI; a global company and a powerful government agency. The title could maybe include “Apple,” but everyone has their own opinion. I would like the reader to at least read the first couple of paragraphs before deciding they are uninterested in the blog.

[2] The reader is invited to the paper first through a quote. The reader begins to get a feel for the tone of the piece as they continue reading to re-visit the tragic terrorist events that recently affected our nation. The exigency of the piece is evident as I point out how cell phones can help us uncover information which could prevent future terrorist attacks. The phones of the terrorists were Apple Iphones, which I then discuss the privacy policy of Apple and the rights of an American citizen.

[3] The “idea” proposed is one that is very serious to our society and nation today. Although some Americans may feel that it is their right to keep their information private and secure on their technological devices, it is also their right to keep other fellow Americans safe. Readers would typically assume that their Iphone is safe, secure and unable to be accessed by others. I illustrate throughout the blow how accessing the device is not harmful, but rather helpful in a time of need.

[4] I wanted the ideas of the blog to connect together, which is why I included quotes, references and the position of the CEO of Apple. I also explained the role of McAfee and his stance on the issue. The opinions of these influential people are relevant as they have proven success and created anti-hacking programs. I researched the issues prior to writing this paper, which provided me with knowledge on how Apple, McAfee and the FBI function, However I wanted to back up any agreement or disagreement I had.  All this while knowing and accounting for a belief that both sides plays a fundamentally different role in maintaining the safety and security of our nation.

[5] A writer must have the ability through sources (books, articles, magazines, etc.) to prove or disprove a claim. If the writer illustrates ambiguity in his/her writing, the point is unclear and the reader is lost. The reader will not take anything away from the piece. The piece was organized sequentially in order of important people, events that occurred, and the reactions of the Apple company and the FBI.

[6The primary premise of the piece states, “It is evident from analyzing the critical arguments on both sides of the case that this issue needs more time to be debated and thought out to make the best choice in how we move forward as a nation.” This is a reasonable statement for readers as it is not too bold as to turn readers away, yet interesting enough to persuade them to continue reading on the topic. This statement also signifies that this issue has not been resolved entirely, but it is one that the US is diligently working on. When it comes to safety and security, all citizens are interested and they want to know that FBI and government agencies are working everyday to keep them safe.

[7] I lacked a key secondary source, which could have been used to include the issue of abuse of power among governmental agency’s. I purposely left out this as a major topic because I dint feel I could make that statement and back it up properly.  This could have been used to complicated the case more, however, the writer did a good job pairing 3 primary sources with secondary (peer review) sources that supported or contradicted arguments presented.

[8] The CNN debate is an example of a Primary source as John McAfee discussing hackers and cyber attacks. The writer pared this primary source with a secondary source covering the report on hackers and social behavior. This pairing was effective at complicating the issue due to the labeling of hackers, and how even “gray hat” hackers still search information that many would not want taken.

[9 The writer did well persuading the audience that the case discussed is not over, despite the FBI dropping the case. (if I do say so myself) The writer’s use of experts opinions and arguments while backing any agreements or disagreements. The writer didn’t stray from the researcher that was done, I.e making statements not backed up by sources. The writer took great care by pointing out that the FBI does need to be able to operate and investigate these crimes. Furthermore the writer used both sides to the argument, pointing out the status of the current war on terrorism, this shows the balance of arguments presented. The writer also did well to reach out to the current American culture and the need for privacy protection (the writer could have clearly stated just how much personal information can be found on personal phones however).

[10] The visual would be the quotes featured throughout the piece. Although I have not placed an image directly in the piece to reflect the topic, I feel the reader can create their own image with the quotes and the tone of the blog. Furthermore, I felt that an image is not selected properly could cause some readers to pass other the topic, as they judge the purpose of the project before reading it {if my math is correct (no image = mystery = Intrigue)}. The reader is aware that the topic controversial as I mention the privacy of citizens. This can create some discomfort within a reader, but also helps them to understand that this is not a situation we can take lightly from a global perspective.

[11] The original 800 word draft was edited and used as a body in the project. This was based on the guidance given by my peers. I then  was able to create an enticing intro to the project.

[12] The writer used hyperlinks with the debates referenced, this is appropriate due to the fact that it displays a security or confidence in the writer’s translation of the primary sources used.

[13] As the writer, I worked to keep the sentences simple, and to the point. I did my best to write clearly and accurately, and to stay away from the stream of consciousness point of view. The use of a variety of sources mixed with my support of the topic allowed the piece to flow and keep the reader interested in the topic.

FIFA and the Corruption Scandal

The Federation Internationale de Football Association, more commonly known as FIFA, is the governing body of world football, or as Americans put it, soccer. FIFA was founded in 1904 to oversee international competition among football leagues in Belgium, France, Germany, and many other European nations. They are responsible for the organization of all the major international tournaments, including the World Cup. Over the past 25 years, FIFA has become a corrupt and arrogant organization and it needs to stop. FIFA is ruining the great sport of football and it is time to start over.

One of the big question marks regarding FIFA is profits, considering that FIFA is a not for profit organization. According to FIFA’s website, “FIFA is an association of associations with a non-commercial, not for profit purpose that uses significant funds in the pursuit of its statutory objectives, which include developing the game of football around the world, organizing its own international competitions, and drawing up regulations for association football while ensuring their enforcement.” Well, that answers that question. But what does FIFA do with the profits from major tournaments like the European Championships and the World Cup? Well FIFA answered that as well. “In short, all 209 member associations will benefit in equal measure. In fact, FIFA spends $550,000 USD on worldwide football development – every single day. What is more, we also spend nearly $2 million USD on organizing international competitions – every single day.” An investigation by ESPN took a closer look at the 209 members of FIFA and the profits they received from the World Cup and found some interesting statistics. FIFA did distribute the profits from the World Cup equally to all 209 members, no matter the size or population, but some members are not actually countries, even though the World Cup only has 32 teams (countries) in it. “Liechtenstein (Pop. 37,000+) gets as much money from Germany (Pop. 80 million+), Andorra (Pop. 79,000+) gets as much money as Spain (Pop. 46 million+), and Montserrat (Pop. 5,000+) gets as much money as the United States (Pop. 320 million+).” Just to clear things up, Montserrat is not even a country, but a Caribbean island British territory located near the Dominican Republic.

Comedian John Oliver summed up FIFA’s distribution of profits perfectly when he said “America, a country with over 320 million people, gets just as much [money] as an island with a headcount matching that of a slightly overbooked Caribbean cruise.” The reason behind all this madness is because of one man and a ton of money.

Sepp Blatter was the President of FIFA from 1998 to 2015. Under his rule, FIFA increased a football presence and sought expansion in Africa and Asia. He has also overseen a huge influx in revenues generated by the World Cup. However, he has been questioned about the collapse of the marketing company International Sport and Leisure and has been linked to allegations of corruption in the bidding processes for the awarding of FIFA tournaments. During his tenure, Blatter has made inappropriate and sexist remarks about women’s football and has constantly gotten away with it. When he was asked how FIFA could improve the women’s game, he said this:

“Let the women play in more feminine clothes like they do in volleyball. They could, for example, have tighter shorts. Female players are pretty, if you excuse me for saying so, and they already have some different rules to men – such as playing with a lighter ball. That decision was taken to create a more female aesthetic, so why not do it in fashion?” –Sepp Blatter

What CEO would be able to get away with saying those things about women and still have a job? Sepp Blatter was an exception since that remark was made all the way back in 2004! He was scrutinized by the United States and many European nations but was loved by the small nations because of the profits they were making. Sepp Blatter was so popular by the smaller nations that he ran unopposed in the 2011 FIFA Presidential Election. So what finally cost him his job? The United States, along with Swiss authorities, opened a full-scale federal investigation into FIFA and raided many FIFA offices to try and find evidence of corruption and bribery. On December 3, 2015, the investigation paid off, as Swiss authorities arrested sixteen people and were sent to the United States where they were all indicted on corruption charges. Sepp Blatter tendered his resignation, but FIFA’s own ethics committee had had enough of Blatter and subsequently banned him from football for eight years. Blatter’s right hand man Michel Platini, also received an eight-year ban from football. In the past few months, at least twenty more high ranking FIFA executive have been indicted by the United States and are all facing extradition to the US to stand trial for their past actions. This is a big step for world football as the investigation has jump-started a much-needed reform in FIFA, but will it be enough to change everything?

If you given a map and were asked to find Qatar, most of you would have no idea. Qatar is a small nation located in between Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf and has a population of about 2 Million people. It is also hosting the World Cup in 2022. That is correct, a country in the Middle East, whose population is the size of Houston, Texas, will be hosting the worlds biggest sporting event in the summer of 2022.

Right after Qatar was announced as the host for the event, corruption allegations started getting thrown around left and right. Qatar, would be the first Arab nation to host the World Cup, but has never had a team qualify for it. At the same time, the United States finished second in the voting, which made them even more upset at FIFA than they already were. Awarding a summer event to a country in the desert seems like an awful idea. Well, at least was the case, until FIFA decided to change things up.

“FIFA’s executive committee has decided that the 2022 World Cup final will be held on Dec. 18, world football’s organizing body confirmed on Thursday. The climax of the winter World Cup will take place a week before Christmas. The final, set for a Sunday, is also Qatar’s National Day, a celebration of independence. The 2022 World Cup is to be played in the winter to avoid the fierce heat of June and July, and it will be a shortened tournament over 28 days instead of the usual 32.”   –ESPNFC

FIFA decided to change the 2022 World Cup to winter because the average temperature in Qatar in June is 120°F. By changing the World Cup to the winter months, clubs leagues will have to stop their seasons for a full month because their players will be player for their respective countries in the World Cup. Big leagues like England’s Premier League, home of Manchester United and Spain’s La Liga, home of Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, will have to take a break from their season in order to accommodate this ludicrous idea. Imagine the uproar if the NBA season took a month sabbatical in December so its players could play in the Olympics. The same reaction needs to happen with the changing of the World Cup. The World Cup is a summer event and has to stay that way. If a country cannot host the event in the summer months, then it should not be allowed to host the World Cup.

The World Cup is the most sought after event in the world, and numerous countries have bribed FIFA officials in order to secure the rights to host it. According to FIFA, the benefits of hosting the World Cup include, A catalyst for new and improved facilities to support the development of the game at all levels, increased number of and higher quality football development programs for both the elite game, talent identification and grassroots, an increased cooperation and goodwill between the various stakeholders – the member association, the government and other bid stakeholders such as the bid host cities, commercial partners, the media and the community at large, and a whole list of others. Because of these reasons, countries want the best odds to host the World Cup; therefore they bribe FIFA officials in order to gain their vote. In 1998, Morocco gave out $10 Million worth of bribes in order to secure votes from FIFA executives, and still lost out to France. Germany secured their World Cup bid in 2006 when they spread $8 Million to numerous FIFA officials while South Africa gave FIFA President Sepp Blatter and members of his cabinet excess of $10 Million in order to host the 2010 World Cup. The 2018 World Cup is being held in Russia, and while FIFA has stated that bribery was involved in the voting process, they announced that they would not vote again.

Gianni Infantino was elected President in February of this year, marking the beginning of a new era in FIFA. He was elected President easily and was backed by the United States, England, France, and many other European nations. He was elected for a three-year term and is a big believer in reforming FIFA. He helped write a 200-page reform package and plans on implementing it over the next year. He seems like the right man to turn FIFA around, but when we take a closer look, things do not seem as great. When 11 million documents were leaked in the “Panama Papers” a few weeks ago, Infantino’s name was mentioned. It states that Infantino sold television rights for the 2006 UEFA Champions League to a third party before they sold them away for nearly three times the original price. The agreement for the television rights was signed off by Infantino, who the director of UEFA at the time. It only gets worse for the current FIFA President as he recently added Philippe Blatter to FIFA executive committee, the most powerful committee in all of soccer. Philippe is the nephew of former President Sepp Blatter.

Just when we think FIFA is beginning to change and clean up, it takes a step backward into the past. The past year has been a disaster for FIFA, as many high-ranking executives have been arrested and thrown out of world football for years. While all of that is good, there is still an underlying issue; the structure of FIFA has to change. Corruption and bribery is going to continue unless the entire organization starts over. The 2026 World Cup vote, which is coming up in two years time, is going to be the first big step towards FIFA’s new future. The United States is the favorite to host the event, and if they lose out to Morocco or Azerbaijan, then we will know that FIFA has not changed a bit. It is time to start over FIFA, stop ruining the great game we all love!

 

 

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.

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.

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