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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

WRT205 Unit III Reflection

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

Brandon Zirzow

Writing 205

4/25/16

Flint Water Crisis Leaves City Drowning in Corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

   

Reflection Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Public Can Only Support The Athletes Who Choose

To Not Attend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFLECTION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In recent years the world has begun to put China in the headlines regarding their unsettling air pollution levels. Although China was aware of the rising air levels as they were increasing, they only began focusing on enforcing and enacting regulations as a goal when they took the forefront as the nation creating the most carbon emissions.
Increasingly over the last 10 years the world’s nations have become more responsive to the air pollution levels and have become more involved in the efforts to decrease air pollution around the world and at home. China has been a primary focus due to its excessive air pollution and the dangers it could mean for the world.
Since boarders are imaginary lines that are created by nations to define the territory in which they live, boarders themselves do not stop the spread of China’s pollution. With the vast production force and the overwhelming amount of smog the world has to be weary of how these air pollution levels will travel and affect other areas of the world such as Japan and South Korea.
China’s air pollution has been affecting neighboring nations such as Japan and South Korea in recent years. In 2013 Japan and South Korea began to offer assistance to fight China’s air pollution. In the months leading up to this Japan and South Korea became aware that the smog was beginning to seen on the coastlines of their nations and in several instances the nations warned their people to remain indoors due to the unusually high air pollution levels. These outcomes of China’s air pollution are making more people weary of how this could impact the world.

In recent years environmental scientists have begun to analyze the impact that China’s air pollution will have on the world. So far they have collected evidence that the smog is increasing the intensity of the cyclones over the Pacific. The smog has even began to affect the Western coast line of the United States. It has increased the intensity of storms in that area. The pollution is merging into the clouds and increasing the pollution levels in areas near China as well. Slowly, but surely the air pollution being emitted is beginning to impact the world more and more.
China’s air pollution issue has led to a variety of organizations around the world taking part in the matter and attempting to find solutions. Although China is its own nation, the increasing concern of their pollution’s impact on the world is bringing in nations’ attention to assist in protecting the planet. Now, that China is on the world’s stage they are ready to fight their air pollution levels more, but it has not always seemed this way to the people.

“Ten years ago, I asked what that smell in the air was, and I got no answer, now I know. It’s the smell of money.”- Chai Jing, “Under the Dome”
In 2015 this women created a documentary about what life is like living in China. She created this video throughout 2014 and financed it, so that the people of China could know that air pollution is an issue that they are facing. Jing is a prime example of how many people in China live their day to day life. Now, in the year 2016, life is not any better.
For many people that live throughout China day to day life can be quite worrisome, especially if there are children in the house. With the air pollution levels maintaining their high stature and the emissions from factories continuously producing deadly chemicals China’s people have become increasingly skeptical if their air pollution will ever go away.

Since the documentary “Under the Dome” was created it has become apparent that China is not the only nation dealing with astronomical levels of air pollution any more. The Washington Post produced an article explaining that India’s levels of PM 2.5, which is a particulate matter that is linked to lung, eye, nose, and throat irritation, have increased from 2010-2015 while China’s levels decreased by 17 %. Although China’s air pollution levels are beginning to decrease, it is still covered in smog and its people are still being harmed by the poor air quality.
Each year people are affected, harmed, and killed by the smog that covers the cities of China, but not many people are aware of the harmful factor in the air. China has estimated that roughly 1. 6 million people die a year from air pollution related causes. Even though this number is high, there are precautions that have been amended to the air pollution law.
The new additions to the law that were created in 2015 began to limit the amount of emissions being produced in major cities where air pollution has been an ongoing problem. For instance, they have begun limiting private vehicles to only be driven six days out of the week, they have created new gasoline and coal standards, they began to place sensors that measure the amount of Carbon based gasses emitted from cars on major roads, and to make air quality levels, identities of major polluters, and contact information for environmental authorities publicly known. Each of these additions has the power to assist in returning the air pollution levels to normal, yet there are still numerous obstacles in the way to clean air.
Even though this law has been amended with new regulations, there are still many factors creating issues for the enforcement of this policy. In China the government is not liable for enforcing it, so the responsibility is left to the local law enforcers. However, on the local levels the officials are not enforcing the laws to the means that they should be. While the government has acted, the regulations are not being properly enforced.
Some government officials such as Mr. Li, who is the Premier of the State Council in China, attribute the lack of enforcement to being pressured by large corporations. In a sense this is what halted the enforcement of air pollution regulations. However, Mr. Li assured that the government would protect the amended air pollution regulations. In a New York Times article he stated that “All acts of illegal production and emissions will be brought to justice and held accountable.” Even though Mr. Li swears that the Chinese government will do everything in their power to decrease the amount of air pollution, why did they wait till now to begin taking action?
Although the levels of air pollution are beginning to be slowly lowered, the nation is still emitting massive amounts of harmful gasses into the skies. China is not simply polluting the skies, but they also have an environmental infrastructure that is beginning to deteriorate. This degradation threatens to affect the industrial power that China has become.

China became an industrial power during the end of the 20th century when they finally became the new “workshop” of the world. For a decade within this time period China’s GDP grew 10% each year. This led China to an outstanding economy, becoming a world power, and to crippling air pollution. For many years the citizens of China were not aware of the smog forming above them, but over time China’s citizens and the world became aware of China’s deteriorating infrastructure.                                                                       Without the influence of various nations such as the U.S. and UN many people believe that China would not be showing as much of an interest in their problems regarding air pollution. In many instances combatting air pollution has fallen second to other goals such as maintaining their economic status and nation’s safety. However, since this issue has been put off to the side it has become dangerous to the nation. Now, China is finally acting because the world has turned up the heat on and begun to demand cleaner air from China.
The problem facing the Chinese government is how to maintain the nation’s economy while protecting their people from air pollution. Since the nation was put on the world’s stage they have issued regulations and an alert system, commonly referred to as the Red Alert system. This monitors the amounts of harmful chemicals in the air. When the air quality becomes hazardous that area of the nation issues a red alert warning which closes down factories, schools, and construction zones. This serves to halt the production of chemical emissions, until the air quality is well enough to withstand the emissions produced from a normal day’s routine.
For years China’s people have been living under these conditions, yet the problem is only beginning to be fixed. People can say that this problem came from industrialization, capitalism, globalization, or greed. However, there is no way to pinpoint the specific feature that led to the dire situation China is currently in, but there are people around the world creating ideas to assist in fabricating a better future. For instance, Sanjee Ghotge believes that “China has the opportunity to confront this historical moment and forge ahead of the market economies by adopting a paradigm shift for the future.” He believes they can do so by changing the focus of their production to create objects that can last longer and by shifting their coal driven factories to run on gas. Innovationists such as Ghotge give way for a better future.
However, there are still many critiques involving China’s reasoning for implementing new laws in 2015. Although China is beginning to lower their air pollution levels and is currently finding new solutions to their problem, the looming question yet to be answered is still “Why is the government beginning to focus on regulating air pollution now and why did they not stop the problem before?”

Sources

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/air-pollution-china-is-spreading-across-pacific-us-180949395/?no-ist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/22/which-county-has-worse-air-china-or-india/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/asia/study-links-polluted-air-in-china-to-1-6-million-deaths-a-year.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/16/world/asia/chinese-premier-li-keqiang-vows-tougher-regulation-on-air-pollution.html?_r=0

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10455752.2015.1105458

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/04/390689033/the-anti-pollution-documentary-thats-taken-china-by-storm

Reflection

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

The title does not give away what the article about, but it describes a clear focus on China and it makes people wonder why China is important to the world right now and maybe they would read it.

[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 delivers a question as to why it has taken so long for China to respond to their growing air pollution. It is current, because people know that air pollution is harmful and that China is beginning to fix it, but not many people focus on why they did not respond to it earlier. If they had there would be many positive aspects, and the world would not be focusing on China when it comes to pollution. It questions China’s course of actions once the problem is beginning to be addressed and analyzes events that have happened to ask this question.

[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.?

I use the evidence to support my idea and it is not immediately obvious because even though there would have been cons for the economy if China had acted sooner, since China is acting now more countries are focused on this nation and if China had acted sooner than they would not have to worry about every other nation watching them when it comes to production. The reader might not know all of the circumstances surrounding air pollution in China, so they might not be able to make a keen judgement based on the introduction of the argument.

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

In my article I show clarity of though by focusing on sections of the issue at a time such as how the air pollution is impacting the world and other countries, then I transfer this into the topic of life in China. I wrote it this way to give people from other places than China a chance to understand how this is and could potentially affect them. I use quotes and statistics to add more perspective to my argument and demonstrate why the air pollution is an issue or other peoples’ opinions of it.

[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?

In my article I tried to avoid the cliché of air pollution endangers the world, because it is something that everyone knows. However, I attempted to analyze the entire situation just to establish the question of why did the nation wait until the air pollution was hazardous. In writing this I am not attempting to blame the nation, but I am putting the question out there.

[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 use the information to develop a rhetorical appeal or the people in China and to establish why this should be important to the world. I use the information to demonstrate how poor China has become environmentally and to wonder how a nation could let its people live like that.

[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 drew overall ideas from many of my sources and I used my primary source which was “Under the Dome” to analyze the lifestyles of people in China. I used the visual sources to demonstrate what the smog actually looks like.

[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?

[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 think I establish ethos and logos by using other materials to support my argument and I demonstrate pathos by using quotes, visuals, and examples from “Under the Dome” to demonstrate what living in China is like and to demonstrate how it would be if the reader lived there.

[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 placed an image of the “Under the Dome” picture when I was describing the events from the film in my essay and then when I began speaking of the economy I used the image of all of the factories to when I began explaining the economy and how it assisted in leading China to its air pollution problem.

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

From the workshop wear we analyzed the main goal of the writer’s argument I changed the basis of my argument. At first my argument represented a cliché and then I adjusted it from that workshop. The scramble workshop did not assist me as much, but from the peer review workshop I began to reorganize my essay and come up with a different and more direct basis for it.

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

I did not add hyperlinks to my article, so they are ineffective.

[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 read through my article a number of times, so I think that I caught any mistakes in grammar and editing. I think my style of examining the different aspects surrounding the issue help me to provide a different perspective on this issue.

Caring for one’s children should be a mother’s number one priority, as a society however, we seem to prioritize the modesty of mothers rather than their ability to care for the children.

Imagine. Imagine your first time leaving your home country. Imagine this first time being with your sick child. Imagine not knowing what the future holds for this child. You would do anything thing you possibly could for this child but your lack of resources do not permit you to do much. Instead you do what you can and in this new country, this country you went to to receive care for your sick child, you are criticized for doing all that you can. Imagine.

This was the case for the mother of a beautiful two year old boy named Muajir. She traveled all the way to Israel from Ethiopia with Muajir to get him the lifesaving heart surgery he so desperately needed. During their first week in Israel an American woman who worked in the facility criticized Muajir’s mother for breastfeeding him in front of other American visitors. She was criticized for caring for her child.

“She was criticized for caring for her child.”

It seems extremely disheartening that this woman even had the mindset to criticize a woman from another culture, another country, from a completely different economic and class background than herself. However, this instance would go normally go unnoticed in American culture. Breastfeeding is so stigmatized in American culture that the care of one’s child is put second to what society views as “appropriate.”

Why is breastfeeding openly so stigmatized? The arguments that are commonly used as to why women should not be allowed to breastfeed in public are usually as follows: 1. It is inappropriate for women to reveal themselves in public regardless of what they are doing, and 2. Women’s breasts are for sexual purposes. In fact, even when some people claim that they believe women should be allowed to breastfeed in public they also juxtapose this by also believing that women should be forced to cover up when doing so.

It seems that with all of the progressive steps we have taken in society that the mere slippage of a possible exposed breast while a child is feeding upon in would not be a big of a deal as it has become. However, the sexualization of breasts in our culture would point otherwise.

When a soon-to-be mother goes on YouTube to seek videos of other mothers breastfeeding because she wants to prepare herself to do the same, she is suddenly bombarded with the comments of people that are a direct result of the over sexualization of breasts in our culture. Here are just three examples of comments that were posted under a video of a mother breastfeeding her baby to show other mothers how to:

Sloopy .Dog1 month ago (edited) I wouldn’t mind some of that!  It’s nice to see a woman with natural breasts instead of the enormous silicone monsters that many women seem to desire these days.  You can’t beat the real thing.

agiel ryuji1 month ago do you feel proud because many people who see the video of your baby being breastfed ? oh c’mon…  interest in this video is your tits…

ming siu2 months ago The husband is so generous showing his wifes nice boobs

We can also see this over sexualization of breasts in the media. In the popular American comedy, Grownups, there are numerous scenes in which the breastfeeding of a four year old boy is exaggerated and used as part of the comedy. This is seen through scenes in which another mother covers the eyes of her daughter when the other mother proceeds to breastfeed her child and another scene in which the child being breastfed points to another woman’s breasts and asks for her to breastfeed him insinuating that although young, he was sexually attracted to another woman’s breasts by virtue of breastfeeding.

This is what infiltrates into American culture. What should infiltrate into American culture however is the notion that breasts are meant to feed children and that they are not just for sexual purposes. The fact that breastfeeding is completely natural should also infiltrate American culture so that women who are breastfeeding their children do not feel the need to cover up or that they are doing anything wrong.

With that being said, the entire issue of breastfeeding in public is also a health issue for children. Specific studies have shown that children who are breastfed are a lot healthier than children who are bottle fed. By stigmatizing mothers to the point where they are ashamed to breastfeed their children whenever and wherever they could be hungry could therefore directly affect the health of children in our society by encouraging mothers not to breastfeed.

One study conducted by Bohr, Boardman, and McQueen, who are researchers, found that breastfeeding is associated with waist-to-height ratio in young adults. Although a small finding, it shows how being breastfed can contribute to the overall health of children:

“A recent study from a sample of overweight adolescents revealed that breastfeeding of an infant is associated with lower incidence of obesity and complications related to metabolic syndrome in the offspring. Other studies have revealed that longer duration of breastfeeding of an infant may be protective against obesity in childhood or reduce the risk of being overweight in childhood. Researchers have identified several physiological links between breastfeeding and body size of the offspring. In addition to fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, breast milk also contains a diverse population of bacteria that colonize the intestinal tract of the infant and may have protective benefits against weight gain throughout life. Breastfeeding duration may also delay the introduction of solid foods for the infant, which has been linked to childhood obesity in some cohorts.”

Another study, conducted in Vietnam by Hanieh, Ha, Simpson, Thuy, and Thoang, prominent researchers, showed how children that are breastfed have less of a chance of going to the hospital with diarrhea and pneumonia. In Vietnam, there is a very high mortality rate of children dying from these two causes. The results they found in regard to children who were breastfed as opposed to children who were not were stunning:

“Of the 1049 infants seen at 6 months of age, 8.8 % required inpatient admission for suspected pneumonia and 4 % of infants required inpatient admission for diarrheal illness. One third of infants (32.8 %) were exclusively breast fed at 6 weeks of age. Exclusive breast feeding at 6 weeks of age significantly reduced the odds of inpatient admission for suspected pneumomia (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.39, 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.75) and diarrheal illness (OR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.88).”

The results of both of these studies are extremely significant when looking at how to view mom’s breastfeeding in public. Instead of shaming women, as a society, we should be accepting women who are openly breastfeeding. It is clear that breastfeeding is healthy for the child and so it should not even be a question as to why women should be allowed to openly breastfeed in public. Denying women that right would be denying that women the right to feed and care for her child. Not only is breastfeeding good for the baby’s health, but it is also good for the mother’s health. Studies link breastfeeding to lowering mother’s risks of breast and ovarian cancers, type 2 diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. Sr. Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, a professor of medicine at University of California, Davis, said that if all women in the United States breastfed then around 5,000 women a year could be spared from breast cancer.

Regardless of what legislation says, women are denied the access to feed their children through the ignorance of others who are not aware of legislation that protects mothers who are feeding their children, or through the stigmatization that leads mothers to feel too uncomfortable to feed their children openly. Amber Hinds, a mother and lactation counselor and blogger, wrote an article titled Why I Am Glad Someone Told Me To Stop Breastfeeding In Public for the Huffington Post where she describes what it was like when a lifeguard told her to breastfeed in the bathroom at a public pool. She stood up for herself and said that she was able to feed her child in a public place and the lifeguard then left her alone. However, for her this was a moment where she realized how women who are unaware of their protections or even too embarrassed by such encounters, could take an encounter like this to heart and refrain from breastfeeding openly. The fact is, even some of the most influential women in our society are forced and shamed into breastfeeding behind the doors of a bathroom. The stars and the wives of stars at the Oscars are notoriously forced into the bathrooms to pump their breasts and feed children whose immune system are not even completely developed yet.

While the situation of mothers being shamed for breastfeeding openly is a serious problem that mothers and soon to be mothers face in society, some mothers are not taking it and are speaking up about how their bodies should not be sexualized while they are doing their motherly duty of caring for their child. An online community of women who are tired of feeling shamed for something that is natural and healthy for their children created an online community called Virtual Lactivism where they share pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Although women are still shamed for doing what is natural and what is healthy for their child, at least mothers are standing up for their rights as mothers.

UNIT 3 REFLECTION QUESTIONS

[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 used my title of the article and the lede to draw in my readers attention. My title being “The Shame of Feeding Your Child” and the lede being “Caring for one’s children should be a mother’s number one priority, as a society however, we seem to prioritize the modesty of mothers rather than their ability to care for the children.” My aim is to show the raeder from early on that breastfeeding one’s child is simply just caring for one’s child in the same way that one would bottle feed a baby. They both focus the reader’s attention to the fact that breastfeeding is just feeding one’s child and how it is ridiculous that it is so stigmatized. Both are a clever way of invoking emotion because no one could argue that feeding a child is not important.

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

My introduction section of the article is a story of an event I witnessed. The story gives some personalization to the issue of breastfeeding in public and shows how common and normal it is for someone nowadays to criticize a woman for breastfeeding openly. The context of the story is of another woman from anther community being criticized due to her lack of decency while breastfeeding by an American woman. The child was very sick and had to go to another country for treatment and all the mother in this situation was doing was caring for her child in the only way that she could being that he was extremely sick. While this story is not your typical story, t shows how ignorant American culture can be when confronted with a woman breastfeeding. It locates the problem of women breastfeeding in public and how people will look at it as immodest and inappropriate rather than seeing it as a mother who is taking care of her child. While there are many issues and controversies that can be discussed in regard to mothers breastfeeding, the one I chose to focus on was how women are shamed for taking care of their children with the main reason behind this shame being that women’s bodies are over-sexualized.

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

My “strong idea” is that mother’s should not be shamed for breast feeding in public because what they are doing is taking care of a child and that shaming women for taking care of their children is inherently wrong. This idea requires analysis because it needs to show both side of the argument. By showing that the reason women are criticized for breastfeeding because other people think it’s inappropriate, I needed to further expand on how it is not inappropriate. By drawing upon specific studies whose findings revealed that breastfeeding is healthier for children and for the mother, I was able to show that breastfeeding in public should not be stigmatized because it actually effects the health of mothers and children. Also, I drew upon other findings such as YouTube comments that sexualize breastfeeding mothers and accounts of mothers who were actually shamed. By showing this side, I was able to show that breastfeeding is stigmatized and shamed in society because of people deeming it indecent. Upon analyzing the health findings from the research and the evidence of the over-sexualization of women’s bodies, I was then able to analyze this issue to show that the reason people shame women for breastfeeding in public is not as strong as the reasons that women should be allowed and feel comfortable to breastfeed in public.

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

I focused the article on one specific issue of breastfeeding politics for clarity and not to confuse the reader. Even though I showed both sides of the argument, I made sure to keep the article focused. It was very unique because I brought in a personal story as the introduction and even used other sources of primary data to help support my take on the issue. My style flowed throughout the entire article and I kept the flow of the article focused and only used evidence and sources for my article that added and aided my specific focus while at the same time complicating it to show different sides. At the same time tough, I did not use sources or evidence that did not relate to my article that would have just added unneeded information. The historicized topics can be seen where I draw from movies, previous research, and then drawn upon a news article from not too long ago.

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

I made sure to stay away from clichés and overgeneralize my argument by drawing upon significant sources of information. I used numerous sources to show how breastfeeding is sexualized. For example, I included YouTube comments that are blatantly sexual and sexist in regard to a breastfeeding mother. There is no way to argue that what these comments are saying is not sexual. On the other hand though, I also drew upon a news article that talked about how women at the Oscars had to breastfeed and pump their breasts in the restroom to show how this sexualization affects women. Then to show how breastfeeding should not be shamed because of its health benefits I drew upon specific research studies that found links to children’s health and breastfeeding. I also used quotes from the research about their findings to show the reader just how significant the health findings are. By using a wide variety of sources that included YouTube comments, news articles, and experts in research, my argument is very well-rounded and shows that it is not just what I bleive but also what others believe and what others have found in research.

[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?

To develop my argument, my sources range from research in the health of children and mothers to simply just YouTube comments. This wide range of sources create a very well-rounded and persuasive argument because I am able to show the reader that I have researched extensively about the topic. This argument joins the debate by drawing on both sides of the specific controversy while at the same time sticking to a very clear stance that is well thought out and well researched.

[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 this article, I used six secondary sources that include three research articles and three news articles. I also used three primary sources that include a personal story, YouTube Comments, and even a movie. I used two visuals in the article. One that is a picture of the mother and child from the personal story and one that reflects a point that a news article made. I used more research sources than needed, more primary sources than needed, and more visuals than needed. Howevr, every source that I used fit into the article and argument in a coherent way and added to the Kairos and exigency of my topic.

[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?

For all of my secondary sources and primary sources I explained their importance and their context in my specific argument. All of the sources that I used were ones that fit into my argument and so it was not hard to integrate them because the information I extracted from them were key factors in my argument. I used two quotes from two of the research articles that show how breastfeeding affects children’s health but I only did so after explaining them first. They were both bolded and separate from the article to be used as a rhetorical device that would catch the reader’s attention and really highlight the findings of both of the studies. All of the sources used were very different from each other but their differences all fit together to make one cohesive argument.

[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)?

My article is very persuasive because the amount of sources, studies, experts, and how different all the sources are show how much research that I’ve done. The primary sources also show how knowledgeable I am on the topic because I am able to extract data from sources in which data had not yet been extracted. My argument was very logical because I was able to show both sides of the argument but clearly take a stance and show how one side makes more sense. I was also able to draw upon the emotions of readers because no matter what stance they take on the argument, it would be almost impossible to argue that feeding children is not important. By putting the issue in such simplistic terms at first and by using a real world example, I am able to draw upon the reader’s emotions and sympathy for mothers who just are doing what mothers should do and that is taking care of and feeding their children.

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

The first visual is placed at the very beginning of the article and it is of the mother and child whose story introduces my article. This makes the article seem more personal from the very beginning and gives a face to the topic. It is placed at the beginning because not only is it placed with the story it depicts, but it is used as a visual to make the reader want to read more and to develop a relationship with the article from the very beginning as it is obvious that the picture is not a generic picture but rather one from someone’s personal phone or camera. If I took this visual away the reader might not be as drawn to the personal story because it would seem less real. The second visual is placed at the end and depicts a scene that I described from the news article about the Oscars where mothers had to feed babies and breast pump from a dirty bathroom. Bathrooms are inherently dirty places because of what they are meant for and they are meant for anything but feeding. This visual shows the reader just how awful it is that mother’s would have to feed or breast pump in a bathroom. Without the visual, the reader would not get to see just how disgusting this scenario is.

[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 did a 800 word draft, a 1250 word draft, and edited all drafts (including my final draft) based off of the comments I received and what we went over in class. I expanded upon each draft by using the comments, edited my lede, and picked apart my drafts during workshops. After reading the New York Times article online about Mind Craft, I was able to see how a New York Times article looks and reads and then used that as platform when I went back and edited.

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

I used a hyperlink to all of the sources that I used. They are very appropriate and effective because they take the reader directly to where my data came from. If my reader wanted to know more about the findings of one of the studies, they would be able to click on the hyperlink and go directly to the research article. Or if the reader did not know the movie I was talking about and wanted to see it on their own, they would be able to go directly to the movie’s IMBD page.

[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?

In editing, I made sure to read through my sentences to make sure that they flowed correctly and that they were not confusing to understand. I also corrected all of my grammar and spelling mistakes to make the article more professional. Because my sentences were packed with information detailing my specific argument, they were very focused and remained on topic the entire article. The focus throughout my article helps establish my credibility because I never once went off topic and was very professional in my writing.

1. In order to move from general to specific, I started using databases that were more tailored to my topic. For example, I wouldn’t use a research database that focused on politics. Instead, I would use a database that focused on perhaps gender studies or sexuality in general. I think a huge mistake I made was relying on google originally. It comes up with way too many articles and it’s hard to sift through which ones are truly relevant to the topic. My advice for future researchers is to research the database itself first. Make sure the database you’re using is truly meant to help search for articles within your topic. Also, use more than one database because even when I used the same search terms, each database came up with different results.
2. GenderWatch, which is a branch of Proquest, gave me the most search results. This particular branch of this database looks for articles directly related to gender issues, which my topic was centralized around. Proquest is also a massive database so I was able to get most of my research from them or their counter part GenderWatch.
3. The research process is a lot more in depth then just typing some words into Google and hoping what it spits back at you is relevant to your topic. You have to not only look at google several times and adjust your search terms, but also use different databases entirely. I don’t think I’ve ever used more than one database for a research project ever, but now I see just how important it is. You truly do get a much broader search and get access to articles you might not have thought about by using multiple search engines and databases.
4. I personally struggled with the speaking portion in general. I have horrible anxiety and I struggle with public speaking. The research portion, while lengthy, was not as difficult for me. I struggled with how exactly I was going to pull the assignment off. I wasn’t sure how my presentation would look and what I would say. I ended up watching several more Ted Talks in addition to the ones we already watched in order to get a feel for how their presentations looked. I then decided it would be easiest for me if I wrote myself a ‘script’, so that I could memorize it and have an easier time speaking to the class without losing my train of thought or getting overly anxious.
5. Exigency refers to the urgency of my topic and kairos refers to the timeliness. My topic has both because this problem is currently happening today and we’re seeing more and more of it within the news every week. With schools tightening dress codes and the increase in the ‘she was asking for it based on what she was wearing’ excuse, I figured it was time to speak up.
6. I think my comfort level is about an 8. I feel pretty comfortable using them but I struggle with how narrow I can make my research results before I don’t end up with any articles at all. I also struggle with finding databases I can use other than the ones Patrick showed us. I wish he would have shown us how to navigate the databases a bit more and how to find one that is better suited for each of our topics.
7. I think the expectations for the Ted Talk was to be thought provoking yet simplified. I kept my Ted Talk simple my keeping the slides I used as minimalist and ‘non wordy’ as possible. I kept it thought provoking while speaking in a question answer format. Each slide had a question about the topic and why it was important, and then I would answer it. I also think the Ted Talk, while it’s about a serious topic, was intended to be fairly light hearted. I tried to add a bit of humor as well as pointing out how ridiculous this issue is while remaining straight forward.
8. As we shift into Unit 3, I think I’ll still use the articles I found from the database research. I don’t think I’ll end up using as many opinions based pieces since I don’t think they’ll be as useful to me. I’m hoping to find more articles to connect my main idea which is that dress codes help lead to sexual assaults later down the line. I need to do more research on this to make my point. I also need to find more articles that are less biased. Ones that aren’t influenced by their own experiences because I felt like most articles were one side or the other rather than remaining neutral and stating the facts.
9. I think having us watch the two Ted Talks and then write things we noticed about them was really helpful for me in deciding how I was going to do my presentation. I think all the research workshops were helpful as well because I don’t think I would have put in as much time into the research otherwise.

Matt Nolan

Critical research

The American Food System

                                                                By: Matthew Nolan

Do you ever wonder where that cheeseburger that you picked up at McDonalds for lunch came from or what it is made out? Some do, some don’t but almost everyone is un informed on what they are putting into their bodies on a daily basis.

There are many different views when it comes to the American food system and how it is run. Many of these views are shown in the articles Food Inc., You Are What They Eat, Organic Illusions, and Resisting Food Safety. Theses articles all bring up things that go unseen to the general public that are the ones who are consuming the food and should know what they are putting into their mouths.
You may ask well, what is in jeopardy with the way that the American food system is being run today? The answer, there are many different things. But, the biggest one is the health of the American consumers. Most of the food being consumed on a daily basis in America is not good for the human body due to the practices of the food system.

The food industry is corrupted by big companies that are thirsty for money, forcing farmers to use GMO’s and specific feeds/farming techniques. A great majority of these things are bad for animals, humans, and the environment. The government(FDA,USDA) needs to do a better job at regulating and enforcing their rules on these techniques/practices used by companies and farmers. This leads to many unmoral things and sickness that could all be avoided if things were run correctly and morally. But is there a way to fix all of this and have a healthier food system for all of America or will we keep going down the same path?

Large companies have taken over the American food system single handedly in their desire to make the most money possible. How did they do this?

They have power and control over farmers by paying them good money to do what they want them to and to say nothing about it. If the farmer wanted to leave and be out on his own he would most likely go out of business due to all of the surrounding farmers working for the company that they once did. We see this in the video “Food Inc.” where the farmers talk about how they are controlled like puppets and doing things that they don’t believe in themselves. Companies also make seed deals that the farmers have to use and if you store the seeds or try and sell them you will have a lawsuit coming your way.  The feed that they force their farmers to feed to their animals is mostly GMO’s and other parts of chopped up animals. On top of all of this, most of the government and people above the big companies have money invested in the companies. This makes it almost impossible to change how things are happening now with the massive amounts of corruption.

The corruption, GMO’s, pesticides, etc. are bad for America, consumers, animals, and even the environment. How? There are many studies that have been performed to prove this.

Much of what is in the animals feed is very disgusting. That means that consumers are eating those animals that grew up eating that feed. “Our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn’t doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be”(CR Pg.26). The feed makes the animals unhealthy and many things are being thrown in that should not be like leftover pieces from other butchered animals, waste, and GMO’s.

GMO’s are in a ton of the foods that are being sold to consumers. As it says in the article GMO pig feed “Currently, no GE safety testing is required in the U.S. The long-term study revealed that pigs fed a GE diet suffered higher rates of severe stomach inflammation…”. This causes many problems that go unseen, for example gluten, many people in America do not know that they are gluten sensitive and it causes many different problems throughout the body. Pesticides and animal waste is being spread into fields and other places in the environment that leads to the polluting of water that all life drinks from on a daily bases. Workers are being mistreated in many of the facilities across America. They get paid dirt for doing dangerous and disgusting jobs. These are just some of the many things that are going on behind the scenes that is ignored by the food industry.

The government, USDA, and FDA are not doing their jobs to overlook the food industry and protect animals and humans. For example Nestle says that they have a lack of funding and manpower to do the job and keep up with the growing food system. The lack of manpower leads to a lack of inspections and oversight of practices that in turn are twisted and there is more room for error which leads to food borne illness and other things.

According to consumer reports, about 80% of seafood in the United States is imported and the FDA tests only about 2%. That is a ridiculously low percentage to be testing on all imports that could contain toxins and bacteria that could harm consumers. The FDA and USDA need to find a way to get more funding and employees to keep up with the changes in the food system for the good of the consumers. It is ridiculous that the consumers think that the job is being done in the right way and that they have nothing to worry about when it is being done poorly. The government, the FDA and USDA need to do a better job, its as simple as that.

There are ways to fix this mess that is going on with the food system in America. But no one can seem to agree and points fingers at everyone els for the problems. As Nestle says, the government(FDA,USDA) blames the corporations/companies, which blame the consumers and vice versa. Once we get over that we can start breaking down how to solve this problem.

As seen in the video “Food Inc.” one farmer did everything the natural way. For example the cows were in a field, ate the grass, and went to the bathroom and the cycle continued. “If the animals were on a grass diet would eliminate 75% of E coli in gut”(Food Inc.). If this was done throughout the US there would be less talk about feed and what environment that the animals lived in. Taking away the big companies that control everything would be another good idea.

    If food was bought locally that decreases the chances for bacteria and other things to grow with the less time that it is processed, shipped, and stored. Though some would disagree with this hypothesis like Blake Hurst. Hurst while talking about a study done at Stanford disagrees with the more natural way. “When a study finds no differences in nutritional value after 70 years of hybrid seeds, 60 years of chemical fertilizers, a half century of synthetic pesticide application, and almost two decades of GM seed, its a problem for the narrative of the organic industry”. This is definitely worth looking into but there would need to be more studies done since so many people would be for a more organic old fashioned way of farming. What happened to the old way of farming where there were minimal problems when it came to practices, GMO’s, pesticides, feed, etc. Will there be a day when we revert back to the ways that were less harming?

As you can see the American food system has many underlying problems that is blind to the consumers. American people are uninformed with what goes on behind the scenes and what they are putting into their bodies day after day. Starting with company corruption, GMO’s, poor practices, lack of government funding/manpower are all big problems that have to be looking into. There are many different ideas and ways that it can be changed for the good. But the American people need to step up and make it known that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. The people in charge will not do anything about it if they are making their money. Also having everyone involved with the food system blaming each other for the poor job is definitely not fixing the problem. So it comes back to this question do you believe that the American food system change for the good? Or will it always be in the poor non ethical state that it is now.

Reflection Questions

Unit I / 10%

Using the homework, in-class workshops, revision workshops, etc.

1.) Describe your understanding of the “writer’s project”? How were you able to identify the texts’ “project”? Discuss your own “project” as it pertains to this particular blog article.

I believe that the writers project brings attention to what is really going on with a song, writing piece, etc. I always listen to songs and try to figure out what they are singing about, I find that interesting. I look up lyrics and there is a site genius lyrics that kind of interprets the lyrics for you on what they are really trying to say. I think that my project works like this in a way that using the articles brings out what I am really trying to say in a way.

2.)  Describe your completion of the “Sorting it Out” workshop? What sections were most beneficial to the development of your ideas—and why? Discuss how this workshop assisted in development of draft and/or assignment organization?

It helped me know what each articles were talking about with the different words that each of them used. That helped me section different articles together. It also helped by talking about what argument each article was putting forth and so I could also use that to organize them with my own argument.

3.)  Describe your understanding of synthesis. What is its importance? How did it manifest within your drafts and/or final blog article? Provide examples.

At first I had a wide range on what I was writing about. Then after doing some of the exercises that we did in class with the synthesis I got more specific. For example “Consumers do not know what they are eating today” to “When you go to lunch at Burger kind do you know where that burger is coming from and what is in it?” opening sentences early and later. It helped me change to catch the readers attention and be a little more interesting.

4.)  Describe your own accomplishment (of something) during this unit.

Learning how to organize ideas better and how to write a blog compared to a usual essay.

5.) Discuss the evolution of the main idea. Where did you begin (include the example) and show its progress (again, include example) throughout the drafting/revision process. To what do you attribute its evolution?

At the beginning I had a broad idea as there were so many things that I was interested in to write about. But as we went along and did different activities I narrowed down my ideas! All of the exercises that we did really helped me to narrow down my idea and be more specific.

6.) Discuss what organizational strategies you implemented in order to structure this blog article. Provide examples from a section(s) of an earlier draft and other excerpts in later drafts to support your response.

I liked the activities that we did in class. For example sorting it out. I tried to break down my blog into different parts on what is wrong with the food industry.

7.) Provide an example of the final draft where you successfully synthesize 3 texts in a concise and direct manner. Discuss how this evolved throughout the drafting process for you.

“There are ways to fix this mess that is going on with the food system in the United States. But no one can seem to agree and blames everyone els for the problems. As Nestle says, the government(FDA,USDA) blames the corporations/companies, which blame the consumers and vice versa. Once we get over that we can start breaking down how to solve this problem.

As seen in the video “Food Inc.” one farmer did everything the natural way. For example the cows were in a field, ate the grass, and went to the bathroom and the cycle continued. “If the animals were on a grass diet would eliminate 75% of E coli in gut”(Food Inc.). If this was done throughout the US there would be less talk about feed and what environment that the animals lived in. Taking away the big companies that control everything would be another good idea.

If food was bought locally that decreases the chances for bacteria and other things to grow with the less time that it is processed, shipped, and stored. Though some would disagree with this hypothesis like Blake Hurst. Hurst talking about a study done at Stanford disagrees “When a study finds no differences in nutritional value after 70 years of hybrid seeds, 60 years of chemical fertilizers, a half century of synthetic pesticide application, and almost two decades of GM seed, its a problem for the narrative of the organic industry”. This is definitely worth looking into but there would need to be more studies done since so many people would be for a more organic old fashioned way of farming. What happened to the old way of farming where there were minimal problems when it came to practices, GMO’s, pesticides, feed, etc. Will there be a day when we revert back to the ways that were less harming?

8.) Discuss the evolution of the ‘lede’ in earlier drafts and its final version (provide examples of each): where did you begin, what feedback did you receive, and how did it end up in final blog article?

In the beginning I had a normal introduction. After we did the exercise on the lede I changed it to be more interesting and catch the readers attention. “Do you ever wonder where that cheeseburger that you picked up at McDonalds for lunch came from or what it is made out? Many people are un informed on what they are putting into their bodies on a daily basis.””

9.) Name a specific writing/researching/revision goal you’d like to work on during the next Unit projects.

I would like to work on making my blog smoother and easier to read. I want to learn how to break it down. For example if you see a blog you see a sentence or two then a space then a sentence or 4 space ect. ect. I want to really learn how to do that better.

What will it take for the USDA to protect the American people? Lately it appears that our government isn’t worried about reforming its safety procedures. The calls for financial profit and economic growth are draining out the nations cries for change.

While more people are becoming more inclined to inquire about the food and drug industries, the power that these organizations have over the American people are still overlooked. This is due to the strong ties that these companies have to the US government. These connections are exposed through many mediums of communication, specifically in the documentary Food Inc., and in the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This impact is pivotal to be aware of, as it directly impacts the nations present state, and future. While the cost effective and efficient nature of using technological and scientific mutations in the food industry is undeniable, the compromise of individual safety through the production of GMO’s and emitted pollution via pesticides are too impactful to ignore. This aspect of the nation’s food industry is enabled by large corporations, often more powerful than the government, that therefore directly influence the health of our people and planet.

One of the most impactful aspects of the food industry is the production of feed for livestock. This is due to the fact that feed that is meant for an animal can be equally as influential on the health of the person eating it. The issue of animal feed divides people, essentially depending on whether they value a greater chance of personal health, or cost and efficiency. In the article “You Are What They Eat” it is noted that there are many potential risks in the production of feed. David Bossman, a former president of the AFIA stated, “feed can become contaminated…people make honest mistakes.” It’s impossible to ignore the inconsistency in the food safety based off this dialogue. Furthermore, corporations have been known to expose feed to clay, potentially increasing the risk of toxic contamination from the farm to the dinner table.

The current governmental systems regulating food and drug corporations are the reasons why we are so susceptible to the contaminations mentioned by Bossman. Mass confusion and danger can be attributed to the divisions of power, and the lack of size of the USDA and the FDA. Marian Nestle delves into these issues in her piece “Resisting Food Safety.” The sectors of separation between the two organizations are complicated and specific. For example, the USDA begins inspections at the slaughterhouse, while the FDA’s inspections end there. Additionally, the USDA inspects meat and poultry, while the FDA does not. These differences in authority can cause mistakes, as the two groups must work together closely, often analyzing products from the same corporation. Even more worrisome is the vast array of industries that they must oversee. Nestle includes, “The USDA has 7,000 inspectors or so, and they oversee 6,000 meat, poultry, and egg establishments.” In a more specific instance, it is also cited that in today’s poultry industry, “each USDA inspector must examine 35 birds per minute.” These statistics are alarming, as the room for error appears large. Clyde Haberman of The New York Times provides a similar take on these practices in his article, “Action and Dysfunction in the U.S. Food Safety Effort.” Haberman focuses on the FDA, as he notes that the organization accounts for the examinations “of roughly 80 percent of the nation’s food supply.” This large amount of responsibility, accompanied with the noted thirteen fractions of power within the FDA, its complexity alone is enough to turn some heads. Ultimately, the calls for reform from Haberman and Nestle are warranted. While the US government invested a combined $995 billion in the USDA and FDA in 2000, it is clear that both organizations are in dyer need of a larger workforce, as well as increased funding.

American health is the primary concern of the food industry’s inclusion in government practices. The lack of regulations on food and drug corporations effects future generations. American director and producer Robert Kenner commented in his film Food Inc. that “one in three children born after 2000 will contract diabetes.” This statistic is alarming as it shows how the socioeconomic climate of our nation and the food industry are directly correlated to an American’s health. Another devastating effect of this claim the film is seen through Barbara Kowalcyk’s story. Kowalcyk tragically lost her son to e coli after he had eaten a hamburger from a “Jack in the Box” chain restaurant. It is remarkably terrible that a perfectly healthy toddler can lose his or her life in days after simply eating at a fast food restaurant. Occurrences like this one make it apparent that our food can be lethal. It almost sounds irrational due to the common shared ideology that organizations like the FDA are established to protect people. This often leads people to not look towards the food industry when they are sick, even though their illness may be directly linked to it. This attitude is highlighted in Nestle’s work. Nestle recounts an instance in which she attended a family party decades ago. Many guests had contracted food poisoning from the evening. Nestle states that they “did not report our illnesses to health authorities…we did not try to trace the source of the outbreak.” She additionally goes on to note that she assumed that these minor sicknesses were “a normal part of daily living.” These perspectives are ones held by many in the nation. It is often difficult to have the awareness to trace back a food-borne illness to a specific company, as food poisoning is so common. However, this explained commonality is what is most alarming. While one instance may highlight a minor case of food poisoning, another situation may include an outbreak of listeria or e coli.

On the opposition of individuals like Nestle and Kenner are authors like Blake Hurst. Hurst explains his support of the food industries use of GMO’s in his article “Organic Illusions.” In the work he preaches about the positive influence on production that this practice, among others, enables. He states, “Millions of hands would be needed to produce food on America’s farms without modern technology.” This thesis does have some truth to it. While the use of pesticides in the raising of livestock has received some heat recently, it can be acknowledged that these strategies do save time and money. Another viewpoint that Hurst mentions in his writing is the improper understanding of the word organic in society. One of Hurst’s frequently used sources is a study conducted at Stanford University. The study highlights the finding that organic simply means the product is more environmentally sustainable, rather than it being healthier. He additionally cites that while the organic industry is growing, it’s from an extremely small base. Specifically, organic products account for “only 4% of dollar value of all food sold.” His disdain for a makeover of the raising of livestock is extremely apparent, and one that counters attacks made by Nestle, and Kenner amongst others.

The power of corporations within the food industry has proven to be too powerful for them to sustain, however, strong ties to the US government have prevented them from reforming. The documentary Food Inc., and the piece “Resisting Food Safety” by: Marian Nestle. This influence is important to be aware of, it impacts every citizen in the nation. Ultimately the choice of companies to prioritize cost effectiveness over the safety of their consumers is the primary reason for a call for change that has struck the US as a whole. Moving forward, it is important to be aware of the impact that the food industry can have in daily life. More specifically, what can one do to invoke evolution in the industry, as well as educate others on the current epidemics the nation is facing.

1. The writer’s project can be defined, as what the author attempted to convey to the audience is his or her piece. It can include themes and messages included in the writing to get their point across. To identify the writer’s projects in the pieces I analyzed, I looked for key terms and phrases they used. In addition I researched the authors in order to get a better understanding of their viewpoints and backgrounds. My own project in the blog article is to help purport the idea that the food industry needs to be exposed for the wrongdoings they’re enacting currently in the social landscape. I wanted to advance my ideas by using information provided in class through texts and videos.
2. The most helpful section in the sorting it out workshop personally was the section that enabled me to extract key terms from each source. This made it easier to make connections between the sources. In regards to my draft, the section allowed me to organize which sources I wanted to couple together and synthesize further. Specifically, Nestle’s and Habersman’s analysis of the USDA and FDA became clearly connected.
3. Synthesis is defined as the comparison of multiple texts and sources in order to make connections, arguments, and discrepancies. This came alive when I wrote about Hurst. Hurst’s ideas differed greatly from the rest of the sources that were compiled. His opposition made it easier to compare and contrast, and ultimately synthesize.
4. Personally, I feel much like I’m much more knowledgeable of the food industry and the effect that it can have on my family and me. Moving forward, I will be more health conscious, and sympathetic for those falling victim to these large corporations.
5. Initially my focus was on the corruption of lobbyists and the US government as a whole. As I continued to draft my focus became specifically on the corruption of the USDA and the FDA, and the impacts that these organizations have on society.
6. Organizationally I wanted to provide sources that aided my thesis in the beginning of the blog, while providing an alternative perspective at the end. This would show my priority in the work, yet provide an opposing viewpoint.
7. I synthesized works by Hurst, Nestle, as well as the film Food Inc. This was used in order to show the difference in priority of those critical in the food industry, as well as depicts varying opinions on safety.
8. I was told that my previous ledes weren’t opinioned or provocative enough in earlier drafts. As a result I attempted to show clearly what side of the discussion I fell under.
9. I would like to better my synthesizing capabilities even more. I feel like I can do better in that regard.