In the society we live in, our digital information is everything, and it’s all on our phones. It can tell someone who we are, what we have, where we are, and where we’re going. So, if I told you to give a stranger your phone right this moment so that the government could look at all of your information, would you do it? In a time where government mistrust is arguably at an all-time high, I doubt many people would. But what if that stranger didn’t even give your phone to the government? What if they kept all of your information for themselves? This seems improbable to ever happen right, you would never give up our phone like this? Well, the reality is, this could happen, and you may not have a choice in the matter.

This is a time where nearly all of our information is tied to our phones, and most people protect that information as best they can. There’s a reason people freak out when they lose their phone. Nobody I know would willingly give it up, but the FBI might give us no choice. They want Apple to create a ‘backdoor’ into the iPhones that so many people use today, for a reason they claim to be true, but it is one that is questionable when put under examination. What the FBI wants would effectively release most of the world’s population’s data into the wild. Data that would be ripe for the picking for anyone who has the knowledge to access it, and the ramifications would be catastrophic.

In late 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people and injured 22 more in a shooting that took place in San Bernardino, California. The day after the shooting occurred, the FBI searched the home of the couple and recovered an iPhone 5c running iOS 9, this phone was secured with a 4 digit pin number. This pin number is perhaps one of the most basic forms of encryption, or “a mathematical algorithm to scramble electronic messages”. This pin was the only thing preventing the FBI from gaining access to this iPhone, which they believed to have had data that would give them information about other terrorists Syed or his wife might have been connected to. However, the iPhone in question had built in security which would erase all data on the phone after 10 incorrect attempts at guessing the passcode were made.

The FBI asked Apple to assist them with their efforts to unlock the phone, to which Apple happily complied. Apple themselves reported that for some time, they helped the FBI troubleshoot ways in which to get data off of the phone, but unfortunately the FBI made a mistake that caused Apple’s suggestions to be irrelevant. It was at this point that the FBI asked Apple to create a new version of the iOS 9 operating system in which the FBI could bypass security and therefore gain access to all of the data contained on the phone.

Apple reportedly discussed this possibility for an extended period of time before they came to the conclusion that this was a terrible idea. They weren’t concerned with the possibility of whether or not what the FBI was suggesting was possible, but were deeply worried about the possible ramifications such a software would have on the world. As Apple CEO Tim Cook explains,

“In the wrong hands, this software – which does not exist today – would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession”.

To Apple and many others, including myself, this is simply too high of a price to pay for data that may or may not contain information that could link Syed Farook and his wife to other terrorist organizations.

The FBI however, sees this differently. They don’t care whether there is a chance, no matter how high, that the information on the phone is useless. If there is even a sliver of a chance, they are willing to accept the consequences of obtaining the information, and this is a huge problem. The FBI basically outright refuses to listen to the logical reasoning of those who disagree, and some think that this might be a conscious effort on the FBI’s part to cover up ulterior motives. This, among other factors, has led numerous others to question whether the FBI and other government agencies can be trusted in this matter.

One of the major arguments made against the FBI is that they aren’t going to do what they are promising they will. The FBI claims that they wish to use this new operating system, which again, hasn’t yet been created, on only the one iPhone in the San Bernardino case. FBI Director James Comey says, “We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist’s passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly”. That sounds good on paper, but at the same time it is very hard to believe. I find it difficult to accept that the FBI would effectively ‘throw away’ this invaluable technology after only one use. The access this software would give the FBI and more generally, all law enforcement across the United States would no doubt help them immensely in solving crimes and perhaps preventing them. However, far too much access will be gained, more than anyone should have, including government agencies.

Everyone, especially after the past few years, has most likely heard about the NSA. After the Edward Snowden incident, in which he leaked secret government information about how they were listening in on our phone calls and recording our data, do you really want the NSA to have access to a backdoor leading to ALL of your information? The NSA is like the FBI, there is no chance that they would pass up on software that gives them access of this degree. Just ask Michael Hayden, Former Director of the NSA, “When you put a backdoor into everything, as the former Director of the NSA, I’m going ‘thank you Lord. Because even though that backdoor is not intended for me, and even though it might be really well constructed, and even though it may take me a long time, good intelligence services have now been given one additional potential entryway into your data and mine”.

These intelligence services aren’t restricted to domestic agencies either. I’ll let Aziz Gilani, current partner at Mercury Fund with 15 years of software and internet experience explain, “Once Apple implements a backdoor to the iPhone, foreign governments will also demand access to encrypted information on their seized iPhones. Even if you completely trust the U.S. government, how do you feel about the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, or Syrian governments having the power to access encrypted data from their citizens?”. Obviously this is a less than optimal situation, giving these governments the power to access their respective population’s information is likely more harmful than if our government had this power. As it is, the U.S government having this power is a situation that should be avoided. So ask yourself this, does this really seem like security is being heightened when encryption is weakened?

You could argue that this is all speculation, but there’s no denying the fact that there are hundreds of phones across the nation that law enforcement agencies want Apple to unlock. How can the FBI say that this new operating system will only be used on one phone when that is clearly not true? If Apple unlocks this iPhone for the FBI, then there is no doubt that a precedent will be set. After Apple unlocks Farook’s phone, what stops other law enforcement agencies from getting Apple to do the same? John Oliver from Last Week Tonight refers to this precedent as “opening Pandora’s Box”, even if the new software was kept in the hands of Apple and nobody else got a hold of it, how can they say no to any other agency after complying with the FBI?

Even in light of all of this, there are still those who say that this new software could be written to work on only one iPhone, more specifically Syed Farook’s iPhone. However, this is simply untrue. Tim Cook who has far more expertise, knowledge, and experience in this field than most others, warns consumers, “Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices”. Security technologist Bruce Schneier agrees, writing “the hacked software the court and the FBI wants Apple to provide would be general. It would work on any phone of the same model. It has to”. The general consensus among technology experts seems to be that if this software were created, there is a very slim chance it would be utilized only once.

Even if the FBI only used this technology once, there is no guarantee that the software would remain solely in the hands of Apple. In a letter to Apple customers on this controversy, Apple explains,

“Of course, Apple would do our best to protect that key, but in a world where all of our data is under constant threat, it would be relentlessly attacked by hackers and cybercriminals. As recent attacks on the IRS systems and countless other data breaches have shown, no one is immune to cyberattacks”.

This relentless attacking by hackers would no doubt end with someone obtaining the master key to all iPhones, which shouldn’t be in the hands of the government much less a random hacker. It would only be a matter of time before our information and important data would be at the fingertips of criminals looking to exploit it, and this isn’t even the half of it. According to Ira Kalb, Assistant Professor of Clinical Marketing at the University of Southern California, “government officials and company executives around the world use the iPhone simply because it has better encryption than other choices. Once the encryption is decoded, could that compromise our security more and expose companies to more industrial espionage?”. Points like these are those that the FBI seems to be outright refusing to acknowledge, by opening a backdoor to all iPhones we could be doing more damage to our security than good, all while reducing privacy to a minimum.

Another major point that a lot of people seem to not understand is just how much information is connected to our phones. This controversy is so important because of what we stand to lose. Our phones don’t just contain our pictures, texts, etc. Off the top of my head I can think of a few operations we use our phones for that could seriously put us at risk in different ways if the wrong person had access. For example, our phones are connected to our bank accounts, emails that could contain secrets about government or corporate business that might prove catastrophic to those entities, or even home security systems that could be exploited. Nowadays your location is even tracked by your phone. However, the implications of a backdoor don’t stop at individuals’ information. Utilizing the new operating system, hackers could even gain access to the power grid,

“Think about something that happens to the infrastructure, where there’s a power-grid issue. Think about the people who are on a medical device that depends on electricity … these aren’t fantasy things by any means”. – Tim Cook

It isn’t only our digital wellbeing that is at risk, there is so much more on the line than most people realize, including the FBI.

Weakening encryption on phones and devices in general makes us highly more susceptible to all of these things and more, yet some continue to relentlessly push for ‘increased security’. What these people fail to understand is that there isn’t an indirect correlation between encryption and security. If one increases, the other doesn’t necessarily decrease. In reality, if encryption is weakened, security will likely decrease as a result. However, agencies such as the FBI only seem to think of security in the immediate sense instead of in the long term. Thwarting a terrorist today by utilizing the backdoor might stop one threat, but countless other threats will be created in the process. It is a terrible trade to make. The FBI simply does not know what it is talking about, Tim Cook does, “Then you’re back where you started “if the new operating system is released), except worse off, because everybody else’s crypto is now more vulnerable, with their data ripe for the pillaging. You’re only punishing the good guys”.

In addition to all of these implications, our economy could possibly take a hit. It is highly imperative that American companies remain competitive in foreign markets, both for “economic growth and nation security”.

“The U.S. economy will not grow if it is unable to protect its assets” – CNN

Competitiveness isn’t the only factor here though, if a backdoor is created then American companies will become susceptible to hackers too, and they could lose vital data that aids American economic growth.

Presented with all of this information, there are even those in the government who are strongly against drastically decreasing encryption in favor of ‘heightened security’, especially in this way. In fact, the majority of the government has voted for increased encryption and decreased surveillance multiple times in the recent past.

For those who aren’t familiar with the term, circumvent means ‘to find a way around’. Meaning that this bill was proposed in order to “restrict law enforcement’s ability to find a way around encryption”. The fact that this bill was even proposed is highly significant, showing that law enforcement isn’t 100 percent backed, blindly, by the government. What is even more significant is that this bill passed with an overwhelming majority vote in the House, and later went on to be signed into law by President Obama. There was barely any divide between the Democrats and Republicans either, which we all know rarely happens. As can be seen, both parties were largely in favor of this bill, which holds great value, especially because this bill was approved only 2 years ago.

With the current controversy this bill shows that the majority of the government is in favor of protecting our privacy and information, which largely takes away from the FBI’s credibility in this matter, as they aren’t supported by the majority of the government they work for. One of the FBI’s major talking points is how our national security is at risk with heightened encryption, but one of Congress’s largest responsibilities is to protect the population through legislation, and this bill shows that they strongly disagree with the FBI. But this isn’t the only piece of legislation that demonstrates this point.

The USA Freedom Act is even more recent than the ‘No Backdoors Bill’, being only a year old. Slightly differing from the aforementioned bill, this Act sought to limit government surveillance, which is one of the greatest threats posed by radically decreasing encryption through the use of a backdoor. Our right to privacy is not one that should be taken lightly, and the software that the FBI wants Apple to create could be perhaps one of the greatest breaches of privacy ever imagined. No doubt it was influenced by the Edward Snowden incident, which greatly reduced the public’s trust in the government. Much like the ‘No Backdoors Bill’, this Act won in the house with overwhelming numbers, 338 yea to 88 nay. After winning in the house, this legislation went onto win a majority vote in the senate as well, with a tally of 67 yea to 32 nay. Also like the previously mentioned bill, the fact that this Act is very recent helps to show where the government stands currently on this matter. Some congressmen and politicians have even taken time to speak out against decreasing encryption individually.

Last year, U.S. Representatives Will Hurd and Ted Lieu wrote a letter to the Director of the FBI, expressing their lack of approval for the actions the FBI wanted to take. They wrote, “We strongly, but respectfully, disagree with the FBI’s proposal to force privacy sector companies to weaken the security of their products and services. As computer science majors… we strongly urge the FBI to find alternative ways of addressing the challenges posed by new technologies”. In case you were wondering why they should be believed as opposed to the FBI, it is because as they mention, they have computer science degrees. They understand that this carries weight, and they also understand that the FBI have near to no credibility in this entire controversy. These Representatives no doubt worded what they said carefully, knowing that they would automatically have the upper hand when it comes to who the reader believes, and they want the FBI to know it.

These two Congressmen go on to reinforce one of the major points made in this entire controversy. This being that if the FBI uses this software, then hackers can too,

“the same backdoor that lets in FBI agents can be used by hackers too”.

These two Congressmen aren’t the only government officials speaking out individually however. Senator Lindsey Graham, at the beginning of this controversy, was entirely set on the idea of decreasing encryption and gaining access to the iPhone found at the home of Syed Farook. But after a simple briefing by technology experts on the facts surrounding the matter, the senator pulled a complete 180. He later went on to speak out against creating a backdoor and argued that it would have a negative impact on our world. Even former NSA Director Michael Hayden, whom I mentioned earlier, doesn’t find truth in what the FBI is trying to say. He explains that, “My point is, American security, on balance, is better served with unbreakable encryption”. This is coming from a man who used to run the agency that would almost definitely use a backdoor the most. The FBI and NSA both seem to believe that American security is tighter with little to no encryption, but if the Former Director of the NSA goes directly against those beliefs, how can you help but question them?

At numerous points throughout this article, I have called into question whether or not we can trust the FBI and their motives. Most of the things they say turn out to be either outright untrue, or empty statements without any factual backing. One of the best examples of this is seen in a letter that FBI Director James Comey wrote to the public regarding this controversy. Throughout the letter it is apparent that the FBI have no facts to back up their claims. In fact, most of the letter is comprised of plays at tugging on the readers emotions. This is all an obvious attempt to gain the sympathy of the reader and gather support for the FBI’s views.

For example, Comey states, “So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law to investigate that”. He words it as though you are a terrible person if you don’t ‘remember’ what terrorists did in this incident. He further tries to guilt trip the reader by saying,

“Maybe the phone holds the clue to finding more terrorists. Maybe it doesn’t. But we can’t look the survivors in the eye, or ourselves in the mirror, if we don’t follow this lead”.

All this statement does is put on display the shortsightedness of the FBI. Comey first acknowledges that there is a possibility that the phone contains nothing, but then continues to explain that no matter what they have to crack the phone regardless. He shows how the FBI are fixed on only this case, and not the overall wellbeing of the American people, or for that matter, the world.

This could all indicate that the FBI is simply attempting to use this case as a base to jump off of in order to get legislation passed. Legislation that would give law enforcement free range and access to our phones, similar to the access they now enjoy to our homes (provided they have a search warrant). Further evidence to support this is shown through the past attempts that have been made to do so.

For decades law enforcement has been trying to access our phones, as can be seen by their attempt at putting a device called the “Clipper Chip” into service. This chip was designed to be placed in telephone handsets, and “would encrypt digital communications while allowing the government to keep a key”. The Clipper Chip posed many of the same ramifications that we could be facing in the near future, such as American technology products not looking appealing to foreign consumers, and it was shot down for reasons such as this.

So if we didn’t think it was a good idea then, why should we think it is now when it is on a much larger and more terrifying scale? The fact is we shouldn’t, but the FBI is trying to convince us of the opposite. Law enforcement has been looking for ways to get into our phones for years, and they might have seen their opportunity in the San Bernardino case and taken it.

No matter what the FBI’s true motives are, many still believe that finding information about terrorists worldwide by utilizing a backdoor far outweighs the negatives. However, what they don’t realize is that the FBI may not be able to retrieve the information they need. Even with access to the phones of terrorists, terrorist organizations, or everyday criminals, there are other ways to encrypt data. Representatives Will Hurd and Ted Lieu write, “terrorists trying to avoid the FBI can easily download software tools that make their communications private anyway”. Tim Cook builds upon this, adding that

“there’s no legislating away encryption. The bad guys will remain encrypted as ever, no matter what. “The Internet doesn’t have boundaries. You can wind up getting an app from Eastern Europe or Russia or wherever, it doesn’t matter which country, just outside the United States. And that app would give you end-to-end encryption”.

Essentially, both of these statements implicate that even if the FBI can compel Apple to create the software they desire, it will be useless to the FBI. While it is true that the FBI would be able to access Farook’s phone, terrorists worldwide would learn quickly and encrypt themselves through other methods. This means that in the end, no real progress will have been made and everyone else will be worse off in the meantime.

In the society we live in, our phones are a part of us, and we need to protect them and the information they carry as much as we need to protect ourselves. The two go hand in hand. We have a right to privacy, and even more so than that we have the right to protect ourselves. If the FBI is able to force Apple to create an operating system that renders our encryption utterly useless, we lose both of those rights, and stand to lose much more. Decreasing encryption is not going to increase security. It may help to protect against one physical threat, but the damage it will cause to our infrastructure will be enormous. The FBI needs to realize this and put aside their aspirations of increased surveillance for the good of not only the American people, but also the world.

 

 

 

 

 

[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 think that the title is provocative and that I was able to get it to get the readers attention. It’s called “All for the Sake of Convenience,” so I would assume that someone did something for their convenience and clearly it was not worth the price. I also think the lede is good because it basically provides some sort of insight into the controversy but then it makes the reader want to know more to be able to under stand the issue and to see who is at fault.

 

[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?

– I think the introductory section is pretty good. It provides some background information into the controversy and how it was started. It definitely has exigency because the person that the controversy is surrounding is currently a Presidential candidate and is currently the Democratic favorite to win the parties nomination.

 

[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 think that I do a good job of offering evidence and then providing analysis of why that evidence is important. For example, one of my pieces of evidence was an email from a man to Hillary about things going on in Sudan. I believe I offered good analysis because I talked about the sort of information it was, where its supposed to be (NSA, CIA, etc.) and I also said that the man has not worked for the government for over 15 years. So yes, I think I did pretty good in offering a strong idea that requires me to analyze and evolve it and help explain evidence and its importance to the reader.

 

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

– I think I did pretty well showing clarity of thought, uniqueness of presentation, evidence of style and historicized style. I felt that I was able to get my points across clearly and I feel like my writing definitely has style with a specific tone that I use for most of my blog entries. (pretty similar to Unit I)

 

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

 

– I think that I also did well in recognizing the challenges of a NYTs magazine audience. For example, I provided an example of another government official using their personal email account, but the way they used it was much much different than the way Hillary used her account and I felt I was able to knock off the counterargument that she is just being used as an example. In addition, some counterarguments, I felt, we re handled with just with the amount of information that I offer and evidence that shows that something did in fact happen that should not have happened.

 

[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 think I did a good job researching a controversy, developing a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic and joining the debate by making an argument of importance. I feel like I was able to include as much information into this as I could. However, it was very difficult choosing what to talk about because there have been some new developments throughout the writing process. I feel like I did develop a persuasive stance because I used examples of authority figures missed things, or having lapse’s in judgment that could’ve prevented an attack. My main stance is that this can’t happen because it has the possibility to lead to attacks on the country. You pretty much cannot disagree with 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 had 6 secondary resources, 2 primary sources which were two pictures of actual emails sent to Hillary and I also had a primary source that helped me understand the whole FOIA act aspect of the controvery. So I think I did very well meeting the research expectations.

 

 

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

– I think I integrated them pretty well because both my primary research and secondary research are used to enforce my stance. In addition, I think I did well in that as well because my primary research helped me understand my secondary sources and the controversy much better.

 

[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 that I do a good job in persuading an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority. I think I provide enough details and information for the audience understand why the issue at hand is wrong and that it should be fixed. I think that I demonstrate ethos, logos and pathos really well as well. Ethos by showing that I have a good understanding of the topic, pathos by showing how something like this has the possibility to lead to attacks, and logos because I try and show that this could have easily been prevented if Hillary just followed the rules.

 

 

 

[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 did well in selecting the appropriate visuals. I used pictures of Hillary (obviously because this is about her), another government official who was requested to release his emails, two emails that were sent to Hillary and I provided good explanation of the background of the emails and the type of effect they had on the issue. I also included pictures of two headlines from newspapers that show how authorities missed information that could have prevented attacks. I think all visuals contribute substantially to the essay, especially the emails and headlines.

 

 

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

When I was working on my final draft most of the notes I was looking at were response from classmates and teachers on both my Ted talk and my claim. It was very helpful because it helped my understand what the audience wanted to hear and needed to hear.

 

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

I used hyperlinks well. All sources are hyperlinked for the first time that they appear in the text.

 

[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 think I did well in editing the overall draft. I wanted to really make sure it did not feel like an essay so I tried to break it up evenly, add pictures and make it flow really nicely. I think a writers attention to sentence level issues does not have any affect on credibility. The only thing that should affect and establish authority is the level of  research that is done and a good understanding of the argument. But if you want me to further answer that question, then yes I think I establish credibility and authority on the issue.

 

1. My title “How You Can Save the World” is definitely attention grabbing. I think the reader can inference that the article may have environmentalist aspects but it also appears to offer the reader action. The lede accomplishes the goal of intriguing readers as well. I was creative in utilizing the rhetorical tool of starting with a question. It is brief but it provides insight into two of the main focuses of the article.

2. My introductory paragraph explains why the topic of the article is important and why the reader should care. By providing the current statistics and increasing danger I establish exigency. By explain the “common narrative” around global warming I contextualize why it is a controversy.

3. I think I fairly well offer the ideas that climate change is bigger deal than you think and that we need to think about it more. I support these ideas with analysis of climate change statistics, international and domestic policy, and the media.

4. I believe my thoughts and conjectures were very clear and organized. There was definitely evidence of style as I tried to adhere to the genre guidelines, appealing to several rhetorical strategies. There was not much historicized topics in my article, most of the information provided was collected fairly recently and the policies discussed were recently formulated.

5. I wrote with and awareness of my audience. I envisioned and audience that was uniformed and skeptical regarding climate change. I provided specific evidence and cited particular dangers and risks instead of making generalized statements. I also organized my paper in a way that would address what I anticipate the reader’s reaction and concerns to be regarding each preceding paragraph. I often ask questions and predict what the reader’s question would be at particular moments

6. I think the evidence I provide, the organizations and publications I cite, as well as my use of the primary text allow to speak with authority on the issue. My article definitely has credibility drawing on several various scholarly sources. I think I also take a clear and strong stance. I offer my own opinions and interpretations of political actions and then offer suggestions and solutions regarding the controversy.

7. My article cites 10 scholarly sources and a primary source being the actual text or the Paris legislation. It also includes two visuals.

 

8. I utilize secondary sources such as news articles and scientific publications to provide background and context on the issue. I analyze and interpret primary sources such as the legislation in order to support my argument and stance. The quotes I incorporate either illuminate and clarify an opinion I have or cite in the article or they serve to specify and clarify scientific statement I make.

9. The beginning of my article strongly appeals to ethos by establishing myself as knowledgeable on the topic of climate change. Citing the EPA, and the Obama administration definitely give me credibility. The shock value of the numbers of provide function to appeal to Kairos. There are a few sections that appeal to logos, for example when I address economics and clean energy alternatives. Yet, for the majority of the article I employ heavy appeals to pathos. I often speak of the dangers and health risks. Also, I utilize language such as “victims” “human existence” and phrases such as “destroy the world” which are intended to cause emotional reaction in the reader.

10. The first visual I use is the climate change graphic. I place this near the top of the article to assist the lede and title in drawing attentions. The bright colors definitely catch the eye and the point it makes is clear and simple. It supports the opening paragraphs in establishing exigency. The second visual is the logo or emblem from the U.N. gathering in Paris. I place this near my use of the Paris agreement text. I intended this to compliment the lengthy quotes and provided credibility to my arguments as drawing from and commenting on official proceedings.

11. Composing multiple drafts was definitely key in producing the final article. I used the first few drafts to organize how I wanted to provide information in away the was coherent and intriguing. The later drafts are where I developed my stance and worked at being persuasive.

12. My use of hyperlinks is very strategic. I intended them not only to adhere to genre guidelines and to provide them a tool for the audience. The placement and selection of hyperlinks serves a rhetorical purpose as well. Providing hyperlinks to the EPA’s website, energy.gov and the Paris agreement full text not only adds credibility but it shows that as an author I encourage the reader to view the facts and interact with the legislation. It appeals to exigency and ethos. A large aspect of my argument is that citizens need to be more informed, by providing those particular hyperlinks I intended to help the problem instead of just identifying it.
13.  I carefully edited for grammar, style and usage. I tried to adhere to genre guidelines not just in organization but in writer’s voice as well. In the beginning of the article I edited for and investigative journalist tone. In the latter sections I edited for shift to more editorial voice.

Elizabeth Quezada

WRT 205

 

1.I think my title is pretty straight forward, I don’t think it’s clever but it’s clear and let’s the reader know exactly what they’re about to read.

2. Video games are an international platform of modern entertainment and gender inequality is still a social issue we have today around the world.

3. Well I go into my own experience as a gamer and how I didn’t even realize the effects until I reached my teenage years. I provide enough examples and statistics to defend my point and point out things that could easily go over someone’s head, especially with my example of the Super Mario franchise in the beginning of my blog post.

4. For once, in a very long time I feel as though my thoughts are clear in this assignment. I feel as though the claim and my stance on the controversial topic is clear. I anticipate that the audience will understand what I’m talking about and what I would like them to take away when they’re done reading.

5. Like many articles, I expect people to have a mixed reviews on my controversial topic, because it is rather controversial. I expect people to find more to say and to question which I think is normal, it happens to many blog posts and I’m not that experienced so it wouldn’t surprise me if these were the results. I think I organized my content in a concise manner.

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 think I researched pretty well and besides the chart I included as one of the visuals, I also have quite a bit of hyperlinks.i also feel like my stance on this topic is clear throughout the paper.

7. I used two images that are my primary sources (the video game covers of Lollipop Chainsaw & Duke Nukem: Forever) and multiple secondary sources (articles, blog posts, studies).

8. My topic deals with an international entertainment platform that’s already everywhere. I think that my primary and secondary sources support my topic because I talk about both sides of the gaming community and how it affects people and the social construct of gender which is already something that is complicated in itself.

9. I think I have a decent grasp on the rhetorical devices. I think they’re effective enough to get my point across and more.

10. I think the visuals definitely add to the content of my writing. It goes along with what I am saying and gives the audience something to look at and not just blocks of words. There are visuals to help explain my point.

11. I listened to many of the peer comments from the day we wrote our claims down on paper and passed them around the classroom and fixed my claim. I narrowed it down so that it sounded less broad as well.

12. I think my hyperlinks are effective and appropriate. They take the audience to articles, to blog posts, to videos, etc. They really do help with what I am trying to express throughout my writing.

13. Overall I think that my writing sounds confident. I think that the audience could definitely tell where I stand and the word choices sound more aggressive instead of passive which adds to the confidence and air of credibility but also to the style of my post.

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.