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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, he’d do it again!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Reflection:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

References

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FIFA and the Corruption Scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Streaming music services are killing the music industry. It may be more slowly than what file sharing services like Napster were doing 15 years ago, but just ask the artists; while they might be getting paid, it’s a pittance compared to real record sales.

It’s no secret that the music industry has changed a great deal since the early days of AM radio and Edison cylinders, but the last two decades have brought about some of the largest changes in the way that music is distributed and consumed as compared to any other. Most importantly, physical media sales have taken a nosedive, with CDs making up about 30% of the market that the format used to dominate.

Thanks to file-sharing, peer-to-peer services, like Napster, that came about in the early 2000s, consumers have come to expect cheaper (read: free) ways of acquiring the music they so desperately desire.

We can’t blame it all on Napster. The iPod, MP3 players, and growing hard drives all begged to be filled with files, and the internet has been happy to oblige.

Peer-to-peer software like Napster, Kazaa, Limewire and perhaps a dozen others all made one thing clear: people believed music was no longer worth paying for.

At a time when a compact disc was upwards of $15.99, file sharing allowed listeners to pick and choose what they downloaded at a reduced cost.

Now the world’s largest music marketplace, iTunes also pushed this new paradigm, virtually ending the era of buying albums when it pushed record distributors to allow users to download individual tracks, instead of the whole record.

This fundamental change cannot be understated: by breaking the album down piecemeal into individual songs, artists and labels were guaranteed a much smaller revenue than if the whole album had to be purchased.

Because of antiquated laws that could really only be enforced on terrestrial AM/FM radio stations and in physical stores, Apple and others were able to guarantee only a small portion of revenue to labels and artists.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Downloading Music on the Internet back in July of 2011, Lars Ulrich, founding drummer of metal band Metallica, said, “With Napster, every song by every artist is available for download at no cost. And, of course, with no payment to the artist, the songwriter, or the copyright-holder. If you are not fortunate enough to own a computer, there is only one way to assemble a music collection the equivalent of a Napster user, theft.”

A stinging review of the service for certain, and it brought plenty of backlash from fans and non-fans of the classic thrash metal act. Many fans professed their love for the artists that they downloaded on Napster, but said that when it came down to it, they felt they had spent enough on prior ticket, CD, and merch sales to warrant the free downloads.

Piracy will probably never truly die, but as various piracy software’s and services came and went, other changes in music distribution occurred after Napster ultimately ceased in 2001.

Technology is constantly advancing, and as flip phones gave way to smartphones and Wi-Fi spread into public spaces, it was only a matter of time before a new way of accessing music came about.

Enter streaming music services. In 2011, streaming radio service Pandora began offering users a personalized, customizable way of hearing some of their favorite music, on-demand, all for free.  You can choose an artist, song, or genre and Pandora will use your preferences to create a streaming playlist, but unlike making one yourself in iTunes, you can’t control what songs comes next. You simply hit a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ button and Pandora’s software determines what to play next.

Free is definitely the biggest part of Pandora’s appeal. Users that do not pay for a subscription must endure a short ad every few songs, or they can pay about $5 a month to remove the ads. This is what is considered a “freemium” model: users can access the service at no cost, but with ads that generate revenue for Pandora, or they can upgrade to the ‘premium’ service that guarantees no ads.

Writing in The Independent, a national newspaper based in London, music industry and business journalist Hazel Sheffield said, “Music has always been a portfolio business. Digital downloaded music, played on iPods and phones, was thought to be the next big thing, but it is already in decline. In 37 global markets, including South Korea, Sweden and Mexico, streaming now generates more revenue than downloads.

As Sheffield points out, streaming has overtaken downloads in popularity. The juggernaut responsible for such a hostile takeover?

Spotify.

While Spotify had been around in Sweden and the rest of Europe since 2008, it took them several years and a lot of negotiating, along with several million dollars, to get American record labels on board so that they could launch their service in the US to any guaranteed success.

But succeed is just what Spotify did. According to their own website www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained, they are generating upwards of $3 billion dollars in royalties for the music industry, from a combined 75 million users in 58 markets worldwide.

Much like Pandora, Spotify is a freemium service. You can select an artist, their discography, or their album,  hit play and listen to entire albums or catalogs on shuffle, with an ad after every third or fourth song.

For $9.99 a month you get access to Spotify Premium, which removes ads, removes skip restrictions, and even allows users to save songs or albums for listening when they go offline.

One might think that $3,000,000,000 is a lot of money, and while it certainly is, it’s not like that money goes straight from Spotify right into the hands of the artists.

The chart lays it out in only relatively obscure terms: Spotify earns a monthly revenue, which is  then multiplied by the fraction of an artists streams over Spotify’s total monthly streams. Then this amount is further divided, with 70% going to the copyright holders. Finally, each artist has negotiated a royalty rate.

Current estimates place the average revenue per stream at 0.7¢. NYU songwriting professor Mike Errico clarifies in an article in The Independent that, “Spotify, the clear leader in the streaming space, pays after 30 seconds.” That means if your song is either under 30 seconds, or a user skips it before they hit the 30-second mark, the artist doesn’t get paid.

Artists have spoken out against the unfair pay scheme that Spotify employs, and other services mimic, in different ways. Worldwide pop superstar Taylor Swift famously placed an open letter to Spotify in the Wall Street Journal back in 2014 when she refused to allow her most recent album 1989 to be available to stream.

In the letter, Swift poignantly wrote “There are many (many) people who predict the downfall of music sales and the irrelevancy of the album as an economic entity. I am not one of them. In my opinion, the value of an album is, and will continue to be, based on the amount of heart and soul an artist has bled into a body of work, and the financial value that artists (and their labels) place on their music when it goes out into the marketplace. Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the numbers of paid album sales drastically, and every artist has handled this blow differently.”

Since then, she has embraced Apple Music and can even be seen in TV commercials for the streaming service.

Or take, for example, Adele. The singer-songwriter released 25 in November of last year and by years end had sold upwards of 8 million copies. The album was not and still is not available to stream.

Things get even trickier when you consider who must get paid before the artist gets their share. As Lars Ulrich had mentioned earlier, there’s a lot of people that make a recording possible, and now they’re relying on a cut of seven-tenths of a penny per 30-second or longer stream.

Kate Swanson, a grad student at Indiana University, summarized it nicely in an article in the Music & Entertainment Industry Educators Association Journal. “For sound recordings, artists receive a percentage of the wholesale price. Superstars can get 20 percent, but most get 12 percent to 14 percent. On a $10 CD, a musician or band could make $1.20 to $1.40. Divided evenly between four bandmates, that amounts to a grim 30 cents each. On a 99-cent download, a typical artist may earn 7 to 10 cents after deductions for the retailer, the record company, and the songwriter.”

The 70% that is shown going to master and publishing owners in the above chart is divvied up between performing rights organizations (PROs) and publishers. Each holds and protects a separate copyright: one for the recorded sound, and the other for the musical work (think of that as the actual notes and words on sheet music).

These laws have remained relatively unchanged since the 1980’s, long before even the CD was popular. Because of this, there is no set law on how much money a streaming service must pay out to a label or artist.

So the problem is clear: the legal arena hasn’t caught up with the cultural one. But the solution much murkier. Lawmakers, musicians, and industry pros are going to have to band together if they want to create the radical changes needed in music industry law to guarantee a fair royalty scheme for artists. Otherwise, artists will follow in the footsteps of Adele, Taylor Swift, and many others and attempt to get their fans to buy music once again.

---

---

---

1. My title, “Streaming Music: How Revenue Streams Are Trickling Out” is just about as thought provoking as I could come up and still keep things short. I believe it is informative enough without revealing the entire point of my article. The lede is short and to the point: streaming music is killing the music industry, albeit more slowly than piracy had been doing. It may not be the most clever lede, but it is very direct and leads the reader into my article.

2. I believe the introduction helps lead the reader through a modern history of why the music industry has been in decline. While I don’t get too much into streaming in the first few paragraphs, it places my controversy in a historical and temporal context, telling the reader how we got to where we are.

3. By placing my controversy in a temporal context, I provide plenty of support and a timely evolution of this problem. By providing the reader with a number of experts and external sources, and also tying the current problem of streaming music revenues with the same problems as discussed around the advent of piracy software, I show how things have really not changed and that the problem basically remains the same. Based on feedback to my unit 2 presentation, it would seem most of my classmates were not aware of this issue, so I feel like I’ve uncovered yet more that the average music fan would not be aware of.

4. By discussing the issue in a historical manner (from past to present) I believe I’ve kept my point clear. The presentation is unique that instead of tackling only the problem as it is today (low revenues from music streaming), I bring in some of what has lead up to the advent of music streaming. Most of the sources I used did not take into account the actions of Napster and others 15 years ago.

5. I feel that, by historicizing my topic, I have given the reader a straightforward, yet thought provoking piece. I am challenging the average music listener that may know little or nothing about the way that they procure music, and offering a younger generation background that they probably have only a surface level understanding of. I have kept everything in a temporal order that also helps outline the development of my main claim.

6. I’ve found a variety of sources from many different sorts of authors with different backgrounds that helps to illustrate how people across many fields are thinking about my topic of controversy. I bring their points together to form a cohesive argument that shows how important it is that the legal field catch up with modern technology so that the music industry might thrive once again.

7. I have several visual sources, primary research that delves into just what those graphs mean, and 6 secondary sources with 1 of them being a scholarly journal article.

8. The quotes I chose illustrate many points in ways that I could not say in any more certain terms. Lars Ulrich’s quote in front of the Senate committee is contextualized and conversed about in the piece, as are all of the other quotes I chose. No mic drops.

9. By taking quotes from those that people might not necessarily think of as sources of authority (Lars Ulrich, a drummer; and Taylor Swift, a singer), I provide insight into the controversy that shows that artists are fearful about more than just filling their own bank accounts. By showing that these musicians are also concerned about everyone else in the industry, from people at their level all the way down to engineers at studios, I feel that I can persuade many readers to dig deeper into the topic themselves and learn more about how the whole industry works.

10. The visuals I’ve chosen show very effectively how streaming and the digital age have effected the industry. By discussing them in the text directly, I use them in a meaningful way, and without them the reader would be left searching for said visual in the pages of the magazine.

11. My final draft was almost entirely different from the second draft, as by the second draft I had not yet decided how to incorporate many of my sources. Earlier drafts were more like the TED Talk… lots of background info but no incorporation of third parties that I allowed to speak for themselves.

12. I used a hyperlink for each new source I brought in, linking back to the original article or source. I believe the way I wrapped them around a sentence or section of a sentence and not just a sources name makes them stand out and gives the reader a better idea of what they are about to be linked to.

13. I edited on my own to the best of my ability. I found no major flaws in my writing, and always try to write as succinctly as possible. I kept most sentences short to avoid any run-on confusion. I believe my writing style to be appropriate for an NYT Magazine readership.

The Burden of Mental Illness: A stigmatism

In recent years there has been a rash of mass shootings and other gun related violence across America.

After a tragedy of this nature occurs the nation as well as its people often ask what could have possibly driven a person to commit such a heinous act, and what can be done in order to prevent future tragedies from unfolding in the future.

Before we dive into that I think that it’s important to consider what exactly a mass shooting is. Part of the problem is that so many organizations have different definitions of constitutes a mass shooting. For the sake of this article, we’ll go with the Federal Bureau of Investigation of mass shooting which is defined as “three or more killed”(FBI) in an incident of gun violence. In the 2015 calendar year there were 355 mass shootings(NY Times). Now this may seem like a lot, and may leave the average American wondering why they haven’t heard of all of those incidents, rather than the select few that most major media outlets covered.

  A map of mass shootings that occurred in 2015 within the United States(PBS)

 

For example most Americans are familiar with the events that unfolded at San Bernardino, California that resulted in the death of 14 civilians and the 2 perpetrators, due to the large media coverage dedicated to covering the tragedy. However, most Americans were not familiar of the events that transpired in Columbus, Ohio on November 23rd, 2015. On the early Monday evening a home invader entered a residential home and shot four family members before being gunned down by responding police officers(The Columbus Dispatch). Both of these events are technically considered mass shootings by definition, however, there is a significant difference between the amount of victims in each tragic occurrence.

Regardless of the number of victims that are claimed by these senseless outbreaks of violence people demand answers as to why such events took place. In the immediate aftermath of a mass shooting that garners national attention news agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the general public immediately begin to research the background of the perpetrator in order to gain clues as to what could have driven a person to commit such an act. Consequently the media tends to publish their immediate findings rather than checking the validity of what they are going to air on the nightly news broadcast. As a result of this misinformation the general public tends to jump to conclusions, which often stigmatize a group of people who share the same trait as the person who committed such a vile act. One group of people that tend to become stigmatized based on the actions of a few people are those who suffer from mental illness.

Though there have been instances of mass shootings throughout the history of the United States, few notable incidents have cemented that notion that people who suffer from mental illness are more prone to violent outbursts in the minds of the general public. The first incident that planted this thought was the horrific events that unfolded on the campus of Virginia Tech university on the morning of April 16th, 2007. On this day, a student at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho murdered two students in their dorm room, and then headed into an academic building and began firing indiscriminately at anyone who was in the building. His rampage claimed the lives of 32 people and wounded 23 others before he turned his guns on himself and committed suicide.

In the aftermath of the shooting, people began to examine the life of Seung-Hui Cho and his history. After some digging it was found that he suffered from severe depression, anxiety, and mutism. In addition to this, it was also found that he was recommended to undergo counseling and treatment for his mental conditions, however, records indicate that he never went to any of his counseling sessions with university mental health counselors. As a result of this, people blamed his mental illness for the cause of his outburst and soon got the ball rolling on the idea that the mentally ill are prone to outbursts of traumatic violence.

After a few years that resulted in a lack of media coverage of mass shootings, the idea that mental illness was the cause of gun violence was placed on the back burner of public thought and replaced with the controversial topic of gun control. However, the actions of James Holmes undid all the progress that was being made by the American public. At the midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20, 2012, Holmes entered the theater and started firing on the moviegoers with an arsenal of weapons that included an assault rifle, shotgun, and handgun. Before police were able to apprehend him he claimed the lives of 12 people and injured 70 others. Once police began to look into his personal life, they were faced with an apartment booby trapped with scores of improvised explosive devices and a bevy of cryptic findings. After the clue began to unravel, and Holmes was brought in for trial, his mental condition was called into question, in regards to determine if he was capable to stand accountable for his actions. After being reviewed by multiple psychiatrist, it was found that he suffered from “schizoaffective disorder combined with a social anxiety disorder”(Reuters).

As a result of these findings, people made the assumption that his mental condition drove him to do such torrid actions. This in conjunction with the Virginia Tech massacre, led the majority of the general American public to believe that the mentally ill are more likely to commit horrendous acts of violence. Now we may never know what drove James Holmes to do what he did, but it cannot be used to stigmatize an entire group of people.

With America still shaken to its core about the events that unfolded in Aurora, Colorado, another senseless act of gun violence occurred a few short months away on December 14th, 2012. On this day Adam Lanza gained access to his mother’s Bushmaster assault rifle, murdered his mother in her sleep, and then drove to the Sandy Hook Elementary School. From there broke into the school and began firing indiscriminately in classrooms. His rampage cost the lives of 20 students who attended the elementary school, as well as 7 of its staff members before he took his own life. Much like the previously mentioned tragedies, Adam Lanza’s personal life began to be scrutinized by the media and law enforcement agencies. After examining his past and his personal actions, and it was found that he was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder(PBS). Though the authorities were able to find Adam Lanza’s medical records they were unable to find a clear motive as to what drove him to murder his sleeping mother and storm Sandy Hook Elementary School. The combination of these two led the general public to believe that his mental condition drove him to commit such an atrocity.

As a result of this, the media and the general public used this to reinforce the idea that those who suffer from some form of mental illness are more likely to commit horrible acts of violence on innocent people.

A survey released by the University of Texas asking what is to blame for mass shootings(Lubbock Online).

 

Now these are just notable examples of the mass shootings that occurred in America in recent years. After the findings by the authorities were released in each of these circumstances people began to notice a trend. That being; all of these tragedies were committed by those who suffered from some form of mental illness. People began to believe that the mentally ill were unstable people and prone to violent outburst of gun violence that leave a trail of bodies in its wake. Now for some they may find it fair to make this assumption, however what needs to be considered is what the definition of a mass shooting is, and more importantly the victim count that qualifies for term mass shooting. In order to determine if mental illness was actually the cause of all of these tragedies, the National Library of Health released a study that sheds light on the risks of gun violence and suicide linked to people with mental disorders. The study found that out of a one year population of instances of gun violence only “4%”(National Library of Health) were perpetrated by those who had a mental illness.

Now this statistic comes as a surprise to most Americans. The eye openingly low number goes to show the perception of the general public can be manipulated by the media. Due to the technicality of what constitutes a mass shooting and the instances of mass shootings that media agencies cover the American public has reached the conclusion that the mentally ill are responsible for most mass shootings and more prone to outbursts of violence. However, the findings of the National Library of Health show that those who suffer from a form of mental illness are only responsible for a fraction of mass shootings.

Yes there have been horrific outbursts of gun violence that have claimed the lives of many by those suffering from mental illness. However, an entire group of people, those being who suffer from mental illness, cannot be stigmatized and stereotyped based on the actions of a few people, nor can they be used as a scapegoat to justify the horrific actions of those responsible for committing them. Though the motives as to why these individuals did what they did may never have been found, it cannot be assumed that their mental state was the reason that they committed such unspeakable tragedies. Just because a person suffers from a mental illness doesn’t make them any less of a person, or more prone to outbursts of horrific gun violence.

 

Works Cited:

“A Study of Active Shooter Incidents Between 2000 and 2013.” Federal Bureau of Investigation. Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.  

Follman, Mark. “How Many Mass Shootings Are There, Really?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Dec. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Rinehart, Earl. “Family, Neighbors Wait for Answers after Hilltop Fatal Shootings.” The Columbus Dispatch. N.p., 25 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Coffman, Keith. “Second Psychiatrist Concludes Colorado Cinema Gunman Was Sane.” Reuters. N.p., 08 June 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2016.

“Raising Adam Lanza.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2016

Swanson, Jeffrey W., E. Elizabeth McGinty, Seena Fazel, and Vickie M. Mays. “Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide: Bringing Epidemiologic Research to Policy.” Annals of Epidemiology. Elsevier, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016..

“Here’s a Map of All the Mass Shootings in 2015.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016

“Texas Tribune Poll: Texans Say Mental Health Top Cause of U.S. Mass Shootings.” Lubbock Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Apr. 2016..

Reflection Questions:

1. The title attracts the reader by informing them of what the piece would be about and how so they are being marginalized, that being people who suffer from some form of a mental illness. The lede following my title attracts the reader by explaining what the particularly the piece will be about. The reader then uses these two to make the connection that the piece is about mental illness and gun violence. Though the lede isn’t necessarily all too creative, it delivers a sense of exigency through explaining that the subject of the piece will be about recent events taking place across the country.
2. As previously mentioned in the first question, the introductory section of my piece delivers a sense of exigency because it informs the reader that the events that will be mentioned in the piece took place recently across the United States. It then locates the problem of which the piece will be about, that being instances of mass shootings across the country and what could have potentially caused them. Followed by this is the rationale and base of my argument, being that the term “mass shooting” is vaguely defined, varies from organization to organization and is largely brought to the attention of the public based on the decision on whether or not to broadcast coverage of the event.
3. I offer a strong idea that requires analysis and support, that being that there is no link between mental illness and gun violence. The analysis part was accomplished by tracking the amount of mass shootings that occurred in the United States during a specific time period and what technically qualifies as a mass shootings. Then I cited specific instances that occurred outside of this timeframe, that people with the opposite viewpoint of me would use as their justification for their viewpoint. I then cited the findings of the National Public Library of Health that reinforced my point in order to effectively inform and persuade my audience. I choose to use the findings of this organization because their findings may not have been necessarily obvious to the average reader.
4. Clarity of thought is present in my article because it introduces the problem, examines the roots of said problem, examples of where the problem occurs, and how the problem got to where it is today. This coincides and reinforces with the writing style, historicised topics, and uniqueness of presentation that I utilized in my piece. My article demonstrates historicized topics by bringing up not only the instances of mass shootings in the year 2015, but also by the way that I brought up specific instances of mass shootings that occurred in previous years such as the Virginia Tech massacre, the Aurora Theater shooting, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
5. I believe that I did refrain from developing a cliche argument, and in the process of doing so, I believe that my argument would not be considered vague. My argument is developed and sequenced logically by stating the problem, explaining the problem, taking a look at the root of the problem, analyzing the cause of the problem, offering a solution to the problem, and then explaining the rationale behind my solution. I also believe that the average reader of a New York Times article will find that the argument featured in my piece is not overgeneralized, underdeveloped, or poorly explained.
6. It’s no question that mental illness and gun violence is a controversial subject that most Americans would rather sweep under the rug than talk about and try to solve. It is clear that I researched this topic by not only analyzing the big picture of mass shootings in America, but also certain instances that could be utilized by both my side of the argument, and the opposing side of the argument. After informing the reader of these things, I then stated my side of the argument, that being that there is no link between mental illness and gun violence, but also the reasoning I used to arrive at that conclusion. I then joined the “debate” by stating that those who suffer from some form of mental illness cannot be stigmatized by the actions of a certain few people, as well as cannot be used as a scapegoat to justify the actions of others.
7. I believe that I, not only meet all of the research requirements, but also go above them. For example I used two visual sources instead of the required one. To elaborate on this, I provided a map of all the mass shootings that occurred in the United States during the calendar year of 2015. In conjunction with this, I also put the results of a poll released by the University of Texas regarding what the public was believed to be the cause of mass shootings. In regards to the primary research, I met that requirement by utilizing documents that were published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Public Library of Health. The requirement for the amount of secondary sources was also met by citing six pieces of evidence that I believe qualify as secondary sources.
8. The focal points of my argument rest upon the integration of the primary and secondary sources that I used as evidence. The primary sources were integral into mentioning facts that based the rationale of my argument. Whereas the secondary sources were used to bring up specific instances that could be used to create a different facet of my argument so that those who may not have the same viewpoint as me could see in relation to the events that they may be using to develop their own point of view. By integrating both of these, I am able to create an in depth analysis into the problem at hand, and my viewpoint in regards to how I got it.
9. I feel that the rhetorical strategies that I employed in my piece are able to effectively persuade the audience about their stance on the issue of mental illness and gun violence. In order to appeal to their emotional needs I explained the instances of mass shootings by using words that invoke emotion such as “tragic”, “heinous”, “senseless”, and “massacre”. Though appealing to the emotional appeals of the reader is important, it is also important to consider the logical appeals of the reader. In order to do this, I evaluated the specific instances that I was using with details such as the weapon used during shooting, the casualties of each instance, and the mental condition that each perpetrator was in when they committed such act. On top of appealing to the emotional and logical appeals of the reader it also crucial to establish a sense of credibility. I was able to do so by getting the evidence to support my claims from highly credible institutions such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the National Public Library of Health. By utilizing all three of these rhetorical strategies, I feel that I am able to effectively persuade my audience to change their views from their pre-determined stance on the issue of mental illness and gun violence to my views.
10. In regards to my choices of visual displays, I believe that both of them are appropriate, interesting, and revealing. For example the map of mass shootings across the country is both interesting and revealing because most readers are not aware of the amount of mass shootings that take place across America during a certain time period due to the media only covering certain events. This contributes to my essay because it allows the audience to better visualize one of the focal points of my argument. The other visual that I used was the results of a survey that asked the subjects of it what they felt was the cause of instances of mass shootings. This is appropriate because it provides the thoughts of the general public. Both of these pieces of visual reinforcement contribute to the piece based on the content that they present, but also because of the placement of them throughout the piece.
11. The article displays that I have edited it throughout the revision process. For example, during the scrambled draft writing workshop, it was brought to my attention from one of my classmates that my piece did not have a lede. As a result of this exercise I was able to develop a lede for my piece. In addition to this, this exercise as well as others reading my draft that my paragraphs were too long and did not accurately resemble a New York Times article. With this being brought to my attention I reshaped the structure of my paragraph so that it would resemble a New York Times news article.
12. Hyperlinks are effectively used throughout my article because they link the sources that I am using to reinforce my claims to the website where I found them. I believe that this would qualify as an effective use because it provides the reader with links if they so choose to look further as to where I was getting the reasoning for my argument from.

13. After proofreading my work, I believe that there are no grammatical or spelling errors that can be found. In addition to this, the writing style and usage is appropriate for the context and message that I am conveying through this piece. By doing so, I am able to establish a sense of credibility by coming across as professional and well informed when it comes to talking about such a sensitive that is mental illness and gun violence.

Charlotte. A young, helpless girl who was thought to be a lost medical cause and a mother refusing to give up on her daughter’s life.

When it comes to uncomfortable situations, Americans seem to argue their opinions to the bone without pausing to notice the realities happening right outside their door. This becomes the issue with legalizing marijuana in this country. But how is that possible? According to Pew Research Center, 53 percent of Americans and 68 percent of millennials are in favor of the legalization of marijuana. To go even further, twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana. With such a high percentage and so many states already on board, how is it possible that it is not already written into legislation and being passed nationwide as we speak. But it dawned on me that it is possible, when people do not realize that there is so much more to this plant than just a sensation, but life saving agents hidden within as well.

Charlotte isn’t the figure we imagine when picturing the poster child for marijuana, but looks truly deceive as this little girl takes the legalizing world by storm. Her story has been not only an enlightenment, but a beacon of hope for many other families across the nation who have children suffering of untreatable illnesses. Charlotte’s illness is called Dravet Syndrome, a rare form of severe, intractable epilepsy. Intractable means the seizures are not controlled by medication and yet her mother Paige Figi refused to believe there was nothing they could do to help her daughter. She would not accept that her daughter was known, after years of medication, to be a lost cause. The Dravet Syndrome Foundation page didn’t even have any listed alternatives unless it be therapy or ketogenic diets (which Paige had already tried). But this would not be the end of her search for help.

Since Charlotte’s birth Paige was determined to find an answer. The first seizures with Charlotte came during her infancy. In the second year, only more seizures began to take hold, some seizures lasted more than 30 minutes, while others came in clusters, one after the other. No matter the treatment it seemed Charlotte would not be able to last going on like this. With over 300 seizures a week, Charlotte had become nearly catatonic.

With Charlotte’s condition only getting worse and options running slim to none in the medical world. Paige decided it would be time to search somewhere else, and that by some miracle, she would find a possible solution. With the help of her husband Matt, (and massive amounts of googling) they found the answer to their prayers. Paige was overjoyed the day they found information on what may be a miracle for their daughter “The day I gave up, I found this old data that the cannabis plant was a proven anti-convulsive.” Like many Americans before them Paige and Matt were not exactly for legalizing marijuana, but how that changed after Charlotte.

Like the Figi’s, the typical American does not think about the many positive effects that marijuana could bring about. Even today everyday people do not enjoy a discussion on the topic of marijuana because, like Trump and abortion, they are unspeakable and induce a heated fervor that many do not wish to deal with. This forms an enormous issue when speaking about marijuana because we lose focus on the pros and cons of the matter and begin to hone in more so on our own opinions brought on by sometimes untrustworthy sources.

Failing to look further than ones front door on the idea of marijuana is a mistake and allows those opposed to have a stronger voice than an agreeing majority. And once their arguments are framed, the outcome can be detrimental. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, both neurosurgeon and media reporter changed his own mind on the subject of legalizing marijuana. He interviewed the Figi family during his documentary “Weed” and came to realize the disheartening truth about marijuana in the media. “We’ve been systematically misled in this country for some time and I did part of that misleading. If you look at papers written in the U.S. on marijuana, the vast majority are on the harm. We fund studies on harm, we don’t fund studies on benefits.” This becomes such a terrible realization. Studies that could be done if the drug was made more available (legal) and save lives aren’t being done because certain entities do not want competition. When there is no funding, there can be no true progression and that should frighten us.

Once one delves a bit deeper, we can begin to see (that even though limited), the positive  medical studies on marijuana are there. Dr. Robert J. DeLorenzo, of the Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Medicine did a study on marijuana and how it could help epilepsy. By using the cannabinoid in marijuana plants, it can tackle frontal lobe epilepsy and bring regularity to the patient. To me this is an incredible breakthrough and yet it is overshadowed by studies that wish to combat its legislative success. How can we allow such wonderful news to be lost in the shadows? It is weak counterarguments and a plethora of funded government studies that mask these wonderful breakthroughs. But Paige didn’t have time  to wait for more studies to be taken and the info she found would have to be enough. At 5, Charlotte had reached bottom and something needed to be done.

This is when Paige decided to buy her own bag of high concentrated CBD (cannabinoid) in Denver, Colorado. She then went home and gave the first dose to Charlotte through her feeding tube, since she was no longer able to swallow. For an entire week with CBD, Charlotte had no seizures. 300 episodes had been averted. Charlotte was then able to begin her life. She began to speak, walk and learn. Charlotte was able to become the child she was meant to be because of a drug that had been so furiously refuted. Charlotte was able to live because of a drug that was supposed to help kill. Paige knew she couldn’t stop there and wanted to find a perfect strain that she could keep giving her daughter.

Once the breakthrough of CBD was found for Charlotte in that first week, Paige searched to see who would be able to produce a plant even higher in CBD and low enough in THC to deliver continuous effects. This is when she found the Stanley Brothers. They are marijuana growers in Colorado that bred hybrid plants to higher the CBD. At first they were called crazy and mocked for growing an ‘undesirable’ plant, but they had much larger plans for their business. Jesse Stanley spoke in an interview on how he and his brothers got started, “Before we met charlotte, before we met anybody, we had done our own reading and research on CBD that had shown that it stopped the metastasis of cancer, specifically breast and ovarian cancer.”

They hadn’t even met Charlotte and were already working towards strains that could help her cause. Paige reached out to the Stanley Brothers and they began to work on this strain for her daughter. The better Charlotte became the more they perfected the drug and they named it Charlotte’s Web, after its founding patient. After hearing about the amazing effects that Charlotte was having to the drug others wanted to see if this treatment could help their own children. In that year alone, 41 children in Colorado were treated with  Charlotte’s Web and all came back with great news. They had all undergone positive effects from the drug. Paige could see the amazing feats that the drug had now allowed for not only her own child, but others suffering.

Paige realized what a blessing it had been that she had run into the old data that led her to meet the Stanley Brothers. But what if Paige had never encountered this old data and it had stayed buried underneath all the negative studies that were meant to be seen? What would she have done then?

It’s difficult to look back and say what if, but sometimes it is necessary for progress. Charlotte would have never been able to grow and learn the same way she did without marijuana, and yet so many fight for it to remain illegal. What needs to be done is more studies and focus on what this incredible drug can do for others. With so much wonderful breakthroughs to be reached there should be nothing holding us back.

Charlotte’s story is a clear example of people going beyond the comforts they had once believed to find a cure they didn’t even know was possible. The Stanley Brothers ignored the mockery of those from the outside and were able to create something wonderful that could better the lives of so many. It had become so much more than just marijuana, it was a way to change lives, and for Charlotte and her family, it had changed everything. Paige would continue fighting for legalization of marijuana everywhere so others suffering could obtain the drug they so desperately need. She had experienced the miracle and wouldn’t settle until others were able to make the choice to use marijuana as a treatment as she had. Paige stated “a mistake was made during prohibition and I think we can fix it.”

1. The title “Why we need to revisit legalizing” pulls in the reader. They wonder what exactly needs to be legalized and why is it being revisited. It also shows that the article will have a spin and new info into why the process should be revisited. I also thought my subtitle ”Why raising awareness about the pros of marijuana use may just change the minds of skeptics everywhere” was great in supporting the main topic of my paper, which was looking to see all the positives that were being overshadowed on the subject of marijuana. The lede unlike my title focuses on my main example in the article, Charlotte. I think for those not so much interested in legalizing may be interested once they see how much is invested and that it has to do with so much more than ‘morals.’
2. I enjoy my opening paragraph because it gives the reader a little bit of everything. I included statistics that brought exigency and relevance, while also putting a professional, yet sarcastic flare to the article. It addresses my point on legalizing and eludes to Charlotte and her predicament. It gives background on how the controversy has been addressed and argues how it should be handled going forward.
3. I feel I did a sufficient job in bringing on evidence to support my argument. Unlike many other papers I constructed this article around Charlotte and I feel her story alongside important data is extremely important and effective. One truly feels for this family and their hardships, which wouldn’t always be captured by any article. The significance is seen through the real life effects taking place in the Figi’s lives.
4. I think I had a clear conception of how to execute my paper. I created a space that both gave hard facts and delivered a heart felt story. I think it was a unique approach because unlike articles that usually tackle one subject or another, I incorporated and meshed two styles to fit my cause. This combined topics from the past but then brought forth new information, creating my article style.
5. I avoided any vague or cliche points because readers of the NYT are usually proved to be more informed and educated on controversial/important topics. I had to make sure I didn’t just go the ‘we should legalize’ route, but rather the ‘we should look more in depth to what may be holding legalization back.’ This I felt made a great argument in this article and avoided issues. This also allowed for more specific detail on what needed to be written. I had to meld both topics of my paper (info and story) into one, creating a steady and organized flow.
6. I thoroughly researched the topic. It was by doing this that I was able to find so much supporting evidence that I found not only scholarly journals, but also documentaries and interviews. This not only made it more current and proved exigency but also proved the importance of the topic. I was able to delve deeply into research on why people did not want it legalized and many sources revealed that it was false evidence that swayed people to obtain this decision. By demonstrating not only the pros, but also showing real effects through photos, I was able to prove just how important this subject really is.
7. I took research and integrated it as the life of my paper. Without it I would not have the tools I needed to build my argument. Charlotte is my MAIN source. I feel the research on her fits both primary and secondary. The documentary I used to build data was important, but further research on CNN and “Weed” a documentary that comments on marijuana and about her situation are secondary. They compile together to form a great mix of sources. Then on top of this I added other important research that supported my argument and found reliable and genuine sources.
8. I think this is what my reflection was leading up to. This is essentially what my paper was. I integrated the story and the analytical and formed my argument. With both I was able not only to form an opinion to refute, but to support it with sufficient evidence to make it plausible and relevant. I then make it easy for the reader to bring about questions on the information by raising some in my paper and then answering them later on with data.
9. The coherence of my evidence with Charlotte’s story I feel truly has a way of persuading the audience. After learning about her story I wanted to go and scream legalize from the rooftops. It needed to be told so more people could understand and it sure persuades one to think twice. By including outside research and unbiased research such as Pew, i was able to tackle logos. When I brought Charlotte’s story I was able to hit the pathos of each reader. Then I brought it home by hyperlinking all the professionals in my paper so it would touch ethos and all my info would be helping one of these ideas.
10. The photos I chose were interesting and relevant because they hone in on the key points of my paper. I made sure to include them in areas in which related to each. I only chose 3 photos in my article because I felt that was all that was needed. One was a photo of Charlotte near catatonic in a chair, her as a healthy child, and the plant that saved her. This was all I feel was needed to get my point across. These photos are so powerful that there was no need for excess; they spoke for themselves.
11. At first I was going to go straight into Charlotte’s story. After a few edits, I realized by introducing my topic I would have more credibility or ethos if I brought them in with a lede, explained, and then jumped back. I wouldn’t have made this correction without a few read overs. Also being able to articulate both story and data was difficult and those edits became necessary when writing became less draft and more final cut. Also finding the main point to argue was a great step that we settled in class.
12. I think they are effective because they are only used when necessary. For instance, my hyperlinks are only connected to professionals in my paper or research facilities. I found this important just in case the reader wanted to learn more about the topic. Another hyperlink I made was Dravet syndrome. It is not a very common illness and I felt it was helpful to add something like that to aid the reader.
13. I edited this paper multiple times during the drafting process. I feel this allowed me to make sufficient grammatical and usage corrections. By doing so I was able to articulate my argument with ease and be able to work out kinks in the article. I made sure all of my transitions from data to story were smooth and didn’t leave the reader questioning or confused of what was going on. So in this sense I feel I did a good job in establishing not only my credibility, but producing a strong and hearty argument for the reader.

Don’t be afraid to seek help, they say. The suicide rate of college students have risen from five to seven percent in the past few years, and has increasingly been the reason for deaths among college students. On the outside, youths and young adults seem to have much to live for, and strive for goals only one can dream of achieving. However, suicide is now the second leading cause of death among college students, where the leading cause of death are vehicle accidents. Many would assume that college students have a higher chance of dying from alcohol related mishaps, but studies over the past few decades have shown that the suicide rate among college students have gradually risen over time, and the connection may be the education itself.

According to a research back in the 1960’s, over a course of 7 years, two researches, Micheal L. Peck Ph.D. and Albert Schrut M.D., have compiled data concerning suicidal behaviors among college students and non-college students. Of the statistics gathered from college students, Peck and Schrut “concluded that the rate of suicide was significantly higher than in students than non-students” (Peck and Schrut, 149), especially for those who were currently attending, at the time, prestigious universities, such as Harvard, Cornell, Berkley, as well as prominent British universities.

In order to prove the accuracy of their data, they “gathered statistical data from the Los Angeles County coroner’s office” which consisted of the data of college students who committed suicide between the years of 1960 and 1967. The data has shown in between those years, “78 college students have committed suicide”, which makes the suicide rate about 5.0~5.1 per 100,000 with minor fluctuations in between. Despite the research done and statistics collected, the suicide rate among non-students were higher than students at least in the county of Los Angeles, however, this could be an issue concerning the numbers in population.

Just in 4 years, the leading cause of death among college students rose from third to second. These students only have limited resources to safely guide themselves out of their depression and misery, but there is more fear in what others may think of them that engulfs their strength to seek help. Nevertheless, these students get advised to receive help; that seeking psychological help from counselors in their university is nothing to be ashamed of; to not be afraid to get help.

These words of support can only go so far in the legal state of mind of a counselor. There have been cases of students who have been suspended due to the counselor’s perspective of the student having high potential in harming themselves, or others, or that the student may be too clinically depressed for them to attend school at the moment. In the mind of a sane individual, medically dismissing a student from attending their university, even temporarily, will cause even more stress and depression, causing them to think that there is definitely something wrong with them. Arising issues like these situations cause students in the future to rethink about their decision to visit a counselor in their university.

As reported by Emory University, “every year, [about] 860,000 people attempt suicide”, which is about 1 person every 38 seconds. Nearly half of them are treated for self-inflicted injuries. If you do the math, according to the provided statistics, during a university lecture class that goes on for about 80 minutes, about 126 people attempt suicide, 28 of which are college students. In a year of an estimated suicide attempt of 860,000 people, roughly 12%, or 200,000, are college students. The biggest risk factor for suicidal behavior and attempts among college students may be stressful live events, family history, substances abuse, and exposure to other suicides.

Exposing themselves to other people, especially college students, is extremely dangerous for the eyes of a college student seeking a way out of their stressful life. Even today, we look up to leaders or powerful figures as our role model, and try to reach above the stars as they did. If a college student looks up and sees that another college student has hung himself, most would think that it would be a sad and tragic moment for that college student to have experienced such a traumatic sight. Though, in fact, it is very possible for that college student to see that if the college student who hung themselves found suicide as an answer, then they may influence others to seek for the same way out.

Back in 2006, a student in Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland hung himself from a tree in the middle the campus for a student to walk by early one morning and start off their day with such an eerie sight. Although we have many concerning issues that are given to students during their college orientation, such as sexual assault or physical abuse, we rarely get note of suicidal behaviors and attempts. The topic of suicides in students is a “growing issue of concerns to colleges and universities with considerable controversy over colleges’ responsibility for preventing these deaths.”

The strange part of this suicide incident is that the victim was a popular athletic student with excellent grades, as well as in good standing with the student body. Many have blamed his girlfriend for breaking up with him before his suicide, but there was more to that story that we would never find out. The tree became a shrine for many of the victims’ friends and peers, which left gifts, flowers, pictures, and notes. Soon after, the college disallowed the students from leaving any more offerings to the shrine, because the college was afraid that other student may see the tree as an answer for their problems.

In 2004, a former George Washington University student, by the name of Jordan Nott due to his severe depression he revealed to his counselor, which then the counselor transferred that information over to the university administrators without the students consent. Due to this incident, Nott sued the school after his suspension, which was followed by his hospitalization for his mental health. Nott settled with the university, out of court, for an undisclosed amount, which could all have been avoided if the counselor did their job right. I don’t know about everyone else, but I believe it’s common sense to not depress a student even more after admitting his severe depression, while in the hope of seeking help from a, what it seemed to be, trustworthy counselor.

On the contrary, there are some counselors who aren’t doing enough for their students, brushing off their concerns even after consistent visits for a certain period of time. In 2000, Elizabeth Shin, an MIT student, set herself on fire in her dorm room. The victim’s parents sued the school for not protecting their daughter, even though she constantly visited the school counselor with multiple counseling sessions for her severe depression and suicidal thoughts for a year. Her parents made a settlement of $27.65 million with the university in 2006, but no amount of money can ever bring back a preventable death. This lawsuit was immediately noticed by other college administrative offices nationwide.

Under the federal law of the United States, all schools can legally remove mentally, or non-mentally, ill students for disruptive conduct, which can include harmful behaviors, suicidal thoughts, etc. Also, school counselors have the power to expose details of the student to parents, law enforcement’s, and school administrators if the student poses an imminent risk to themselves or others without risking liability.

All of these presented issues can be potentially prevented if the legal privileges of university counselors and psychologists have specific restraints based on the issue that is being handled. If students acknowledged even the slightest possibility of successfully receiving help and treatment, then it is very possible that they would choose the higher road than taking their own life. These students aren’t ignorant of the helpful resources that is offered to them in their university, but rather fear judgement and the possibility of the worst case scenario; getting suspended or expelled due to university counselor’s judgement of the students’ mental state.

We are told by our family, friends, and peers to not be afraid to receive help, and that seeking help is a normal thing; that everybody does it. To these people’s eyes, they believe it’s an easy step for depressed people to just simply agree that they’re right and expect them to immediately pick up the phone to make an appointment with a therapist.

Truth is, making that first step into believing that help will even be helpful at all is the biggest denial that they have to accept. Sometimes it’s hard to believe for these people with issues, that causes them to tip their mental stability, can even find the right therapist to effectively help them; and how long will that help take? Because of this, the quicker method of suicide triumphs the necessity to seek for advice on their own will.

---

---

 

Evaluation

1. Well, the title isn’t incredibly creative, but it shows a cause of issue of students, which points towards young adults between the ages of 18-30. My lede “Don’t be afraid to seek help, they say”. The part where it says “they say” implies that seeking help is actually wrong or the opposite of what you should do. It makes the reader think why the writer, myself, is disagreeing of seeking help because of it’s negative potential to stress or depress the students even more.
2. My introductory section of the article gives a glimpse of the statistics that will be more elaborated throughout the article, as well as showing how these young adults seem happy and perky on the outside, but in the inside, there are more issues than we assume there are. Since suicide is the second leading cause of death among college students, it shows that there is a big issue if students are taking their own life instead of poisoning their own liver to death. Rationally, we would think these young adults would stupidly or accidentally kill themselves through car accidents, partying, alcohol, fighting, etc., but the truth is college students are going through more than we believe if suicide has bumped up to 2^nd leading cause of death just in 4 years. Also, how university counselors aren’t doing their job well enough for these problems to consistently exist.
3. The entire fact of college students are having stress and depression issues with the education they’re receiving and the lack of help they’re not receiving is pretty much asking for support and evidence. No one can simply say that college students are going through or handling more than we believe, so that is something that is directly asking for evidence to support the article. I don’t believe this topic is very “obvious” to the readers; if anything they just know or heard of college students taking their own life here and there on the news.
4. The writer (myself) clarifies all form of information that needs back up evidence, such as statistics, professional input from trustworthy sources. The writer also orders each paragraph by what the writer believes is important to read in a specific order while the pictures show an idea of how the writer feels about what he’s writing. This isn’t necessary a historical topic, though it shows evidence of research from over 40-50 years back.
5. The audience of the NYT’s magazine may argue that it is necessary for counselors or therapists to do what they believe is right, such as letting the university administrators know the students information that is being told to the counselor in certain circumstances, but that is why I showed evidence of students being overestimate and underestimated of their mental stability. I do understand not all counselors and therapists are like this, but there are innocent students who simply looked for guidance and support, but got suspended for mental instability. I believe the order and sequence of this material isn’t exactly a “story” to make sense, but paragraphs of information that get more and more intense as the reader reads along.
6. I wanted to talk about a controversial issue by talking about my side of the issue so that others can attack me head on in this article to observe their view of this issue. I spoke poorly about counselors and therapist, about how they have too much power if they choose to, but I do know there are a good amount of counselors and therapists who won’t take extreme measures (speaking from personal experience).
7. I included 8 secondary sources, 2 primary sources, and multiple visual sources for readers to understand more than just words being written from left to right across the screen. There are two separate issues that need to be addressed here: the rise of college students suiciding, and university counselors unfairly suspending students and making them check their mental status from overestimating their mental stability.
8. As stated in the previous question, there were two separate issues that needed to be addressed that both tie into a similar topic. I introduced my argument by talking about various suicide cases and multiple cases of students being overestimate or underestimated of their mental stability. I believe I included enough evidence, statistics, and my argument to put my entire controversial issue in context, also enough for readers to come with an arguable debate.
9. I believe I effectively used the positions of authority (university counselors and therapists) to my own advantage, saying that some of these authority figures, that I specifically pointed out, can’t be trusted of their judgement. Just like not all teachers/professors aren’t qualified to teach/lecture, even if they’ve obtained a degree, I believe the same goes for university counselors. I successfully reached out to the audience using rhetorical tools by, hopefully, making them connect with these students who are involved in these stories.
10. I provided visuals, but not too much, for readers to establish a connection with the story as it’s being told. For people who think on a deeper perspective, they will visually understand what the visuals mean and how they connect with the article. I believe the visuals are very meaningful, not only to “brighten” up the article, but to not make the article look so plain. I don’t believe the article will be affected too much, because to a person of perspective like me, the content of the information is much more important than looking at visuals.
11. The article developed over time through peer reviews, teachers comments, and various drafts. The class exercise of scrambling the blog made me view the article in a different way and gave me an idea of another argument to include. Also, the way we included our “claim” helped me focus in on my argument more to make it precise and clear.
12. I included multiple hyperlinks by each story that supports my article on the name or main subject of that specific story. I believe it’s very effective for readers to click the link to look for back up evidence, and also very appropriately positioned.
13. I reviewed the article over and over again to check for grammar, check to make sure the style of the paragraphs are effectively separated for an article style, and the usage of hyperlinks, visuals, statistics, and factual stories helped make the article more credible. Especially because I used authority figures, such as university counselors, who can potentially have too much power, the readers will possibly have an epiphany that this may be true.

What lives in swampy water, leaves itchy red spots when it bites you, essentially invisible, weighs about 2.5 milligrams and buzzes at about 174Hz 3 times per second? You sure guessed it! It’s the pesky little mosquito. Summer is creeping up on us slowly but shortly, which means bad news for us, but good new for the Zika Virus.

The Zika Virus is spread through the aedes aegypti mosquito, and is more likely to spread through warm and humid nations just above and below the equator, for instance in Brazil.

While it seems that the Zika virus has erupted in Brazil, many avoid its potential in stirring up conflict beyond the clinical level. The Zika virus has done nothing but strike fear and panic in Brazil since its first appearance. The unfair rules placed on women put them at risk, with little support from higher authorities.

For anyone who is affected by the Zika virus, they may experience symptoms ranging from fever, rash, joint pain and red eyes. Effects are more extreme when the disease infects a pregnant woman. Pregnant women infected with the Zika Virus are at risk for giving birth to a diseased child. More than 4,000 babies in Brazil have been born with microcephaly. Infected mothers offspring are at a high risk for being affected with microcephaly, causing a stunt in the baby’s head growth, and also causing fatal brain damage. This crisis has led to the World Health Organization to declare the Zika Virus a worldwide public health emergency.

There are not many options that exist to aid the pregnant women who are infected with the Zika virus. The existing options she could choose between would be to have an abortion, or to just endure the burden of raising a child with a disease. Many women in Brazil are from low-income families who cannot afford contraceptives, and are now left with the cost of dealing with a baby with a disorder. However, the latter option is the only legal option these women can take.

Notwithstanding urgent requests from global leaders to loosen abortion penalties in Latin America due to the Zika Virus, officials in Brazil are moving in the other direction, and the wrong one too. In its place, conservatives in Brazil are working to increase penalties for women who have had an abortion. This intensely Catholic government would sentence women to nearly five years in jail if they abort the child with microcephaly.

“With the crisis that has hit our country, a feminist movement has tried to take advantage to change our abortion laws,’’ said Anderson Ferreira, a member of Brazil’s lower house from the Republic Party.

He also adds “this movement needs to be confronted. Everyone needs to realize the gravity of the crime that is abortion and that is not acceptable.”

This law was passed in 2012, to ensure that women are allowed to have contraceptives, and abort the baby when detected with the Zika Virus. However, Zika can usually only be detected in the third trimester of a pregnancy, and by then it is too late.

Officials in Columbia advised women to put off getting pregnant this year. In El Salvador, officials are telling women to put off getting pregnant until 2018. Many other Latin American countries are doing the same, where they are simply telling women to not get pregnant.
What about accidental pregnancies?

“The advice of some governments to women to delay getting pregnant, ignores the reality that many women and girls simply cannot exercise control over whether or when or under what circumstances they become pregnant, especially in an environment where sexual violence is so common,” said UN High Commissioner for Hunan Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

The pope even came out to speak about this issue. He suggested that women are now able to, and allowed to use contraceptives only to prevent the spread and contraction of the zika virus. However, for low-income families, contraceptives aren’t even prevalent.

When the pope was asked whether or not abortion or contraceptives would be a better choice, he states that contraceptives may be morally acceptable in fighting the Zika Virus, and abortion is a crime and an absolute evil.

Evil.

Women who are raped and did not want the baby, and are now stuck with a diseased baby and all she wants to do is abort it, is evil. But the rape was not?

A woman who will probably starve trying to pay medical bills, and wants to abort the baby to avoid the burden, is evil.

Women who are young, from remote or low income communities, and/or living in other vulnerable situations, disproportionately face multiple barriers when it comes to exercising meaningful decision-making power and control over their sexual and reproductive lives. In such context, a call for women to simple delay or avoid pregnancy is not only unrealistic but is also irresponsible and negligent.

Instead of putting laws on women and telling them to not get pregnant, we should start funding so we can help these women get what they need to live a happy and healthy life with their baby. If abortion is still going to be illegal, give these women all the resources and money they need to get check ups for the baby, and for themselves. We need to ensure universal access to a full range of high-quality, voluntary, and use-friendly contraceptive methods. We need to target both men and women in public health awareness campaigns. It takes two to get pregnant; it is not right to have the women carry the entire burden. We need to decriminalize abortion, and remove all legal and implementation barriers, so that we can expand and ensure access to save procedures for pregnancy termination. We need to support the women in Zika affected countries who decide to remain pregnant. This means we need to support their delivery, pre and post partum care and neo natal care services, as well as therapy and health and educational services.

 

Although many video games are sexist, many people focus on how they are sexist towards women and not how the sexism found in video games questions an individual’s femininity and masculinity in general. The idea surrounding that the world of gamers consists of only males was true years ago but as of recent studies, that idea has been entirely shattered due to a change in demographics. Despite this change in demographics, this idea still plagues our generations today. These changes in gaming demographics (specifically consoles, computer gaming included) will be a much needed push to develop more people friendly video games.

 

Games of many types are sexist and gendered. However, before I continue into why this topic grew into such an importance that it drove me to write about it, I suggest watching the video of four year old Riley on Marketing. Gender as a social construct had become so blatant that even a four year old was aware that she had a limited amount of options because of the gender norms tied to her sex. Sometimes it isn’t as conspicuous as colored coded toys assigned to each gender, but appear in more innocuous forms. For example, many people have played the games from Super Mario franchise. A harmless, animated game that a player can easily become engrossed in just playing the game and dodging shells and grabbing mushrooms that the object of the game which is to save the damsel in distress, Princess Peach becomes easily forgettable.

 

Though we may think World of Warcraft is for the man in his mother’s basement, that’s not true. At least not anymore. Games are—or at least should be—for everyone, but there are many games that undermine that sentiment. There’s a perception that those who own the gamer culture are straight, white men. This perception makes sense, seeing as video game companies have marketed to white males for decades now, and everything that they see in games says ‘women are here for your visual pleasure.’ Playing games is not gendered! But at some point during the earlier stages of gaming, it was lost and this space has since been marketed as a men’s space, and now that’s changing.

 

Grasping the sexism and gender inequality that exists in video games did not really sink into my brain until I was a teenager. I have   been a gamer since I was about six years old. I would watch my cousins and my older brother play their violent fighting games or first person shooter games without realizing any of the subtext within the game and its characters. At the time, if I wanted to play, I simply could without any hostile comments towards my gender.

As I got older and encountered the online platform of gaming through consoles, my gender became a problem and it was as my friends and I were harassed online that it truly clicked for me. Truth be told, I avoided the online platform just to avoid any kind of harassment from other players. Many women choose gender neutral usernames online or play with their headset off so that players cannot hear whether or not they are female. They try to avoid calling attention to themselves because what we will hear resembles comments like this, ‘get back in the kitchen,’ which compared to what most female users hear, is among some of the less harsh remarks.

 

Sexist depictions of women, objectification and lack of diversity of the female form as depicted in the previous images are just some of the abundant ways video games discriminate against women. Objectification, fetishism, a hostility toward female gamers, sexual harassment, gendered games, and the overall assumption that female gamers are incompetent and lack skill make the gaming world an unwelcoming place for females. It’s not hard to see why this is so after scrolling through the comments in Jenny Haniver’s website, looking at a couple of gameplays and game advertisements. Ubisoft, a game company goes as far as saying that “women are just too difficult to animate,” in response to questions regarding an abandoned attempt to provide a female character option for one of their most recent Assassin’s Creed games, Assassin’s Creed: Unity despite others coming out and saying that their claim was rather exaggerated. Ubisoft really enjoys holding onto their white, male protagonists.

 

The video game series of Grand Theft Auto.  Among many of the discriminatory choices you can execute, you can pick up a female sex worker and after vigorous love-making in your car, instead of the awkward one-night stand exit or if you cannot afford to pay her fee, you have the option of murdering her. Lollipop Chainsaw, another provocative example of sexism out of many, where even though there is a female protagonist, she has flat dialogue and fights zombies in a rather “aerodynamic” outfit (see first image). She’s the epitome of what people think many gamers want.

A survey from Pew Research Center that covers the issues around the gamer realm suggests that of the men surveyed, 50 % identified as gamers and of the women surveyed, 48 % identified as gamers. Super Data designed a gamer breakdown, their research cracked down on gaming  preferences for each gender. Some types of video games do not have much of a gap in interest at all while others are slightly dominated by one gender. However, while there are differences in taste, a balanced interest from both genders in gaming exists. The gap between genders that make video games out to be male dominated is an imagined one, or at least as of recent research. A study done by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) shows that of the gamers studied, 53 % were male and 47% were female. The demographics have been changing and each time, the imagined chasm keeps closing and closing.

 

It’s important to note that video games do not exempt men from sexist portrayals. Characters like Duke Nukem depict negative, and hyper-masculine images. I mean, who would not want to be a brawny, muscular strapping man with his fabulously attired ladies? Hopefully no one, because this is a terrible depiction of masculinity. Unfortunately enough, many games avoid developing their male characters any further than the stereotypical white muscular male protagonist who is slightly rough around the edges. Companies like Ubisoft produce many games with the same recycled male protagonist where the hardest decision that burdens them is simply, to have facial hair or not? Many stereotypes exist for male characters and male gamers. Negative characteristics include, Misogyny, chauvinism, basement dwelling, hostility. These are only a few. This in turn stigmatizes the male demographic just as much as female gamers. It shortens the player pool so men who don’t specifically identify themselves with hyper masculinity feel intimidated. Therefore they become more transparent and irrelevant when it comes to designing games for male gamers.

 

On the bright side, game franchises like Mass Effect and Resident Evil are more inclusive and diverse. These games provide more customizable characters, choices, and promote more positive images especially the image of women. Bioware, is a company that produces Mass Effect and other people friendly games like Dragon Age. These games display women who are dressed appropriately for their action packed scenarios and their knowledge surpasses their physical attributes and use of a gun.  These women are leaders and of course, in games like Mass Effect you create the personality around your character depending on the decisions you have them make. Resident Evil: Code Veronica, obligates you to play the first half of the game as the character Claire Redfield until you find her brother Chris Redfield. Claire is entirely capable and not just there to be aesthetically pleasing, or temptation to the male protagonist. She has brains, sense and braveness. These are some examples of franchises and games that have responded and are continuing to respond to the demands for games with better content but there are still many improvements to be made.

 

Why does any of this matter?  Even though we’re talking about games, they affect us in real life. The way we treat each other and the way we treat sexism is not a game. Video games, like any other form of entertainment, influence our culture especially the younger generations and they help shape the people that they are going to become. Younger males are the primary audience of this platform of entertainment, and they’re given these types of games because that is what creators think they want but they are taught to desire content that demeans women, and defines masculinity in destructive ways.
No one is born wanting these things. Creating a ‘how to play’ guide and sliding it in between a variety of texts and forms of entertainment actually attributes how society relates to you and you to yourself. We can teach them to want better. We might think the games are a break from learning but they like, all other forms of entertainment, teach us something. We cannot think so little of people to imagine that they are not intelligent or empathetic enough to handle or desire forms of entertainment that handle the topic of gender in a positive and inclusive manner. We are truly missing out on a very good learning opportunity. Video games didn’t originate as “Gamer guys only” entertainment and were made with the intentions of being a source of entertainment for many people of many types. Somewhere along the way that has been lost and “no girls allowed” image was produced and swelled the gaming community. Games are and should be for everyone and we should work on bringing that back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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