(AIDS Memorial Quilt displayed on the National Mall in Washington, DC for XIX World AIDS Conference”)

“People don’t always think in the heat of passion, they just dive on in and deal with consequences later”. These are just a few words Paul Watson wrote on his blog submission to “My Prep Experience” as he goes into depth about his own struggles with having safe sex and his encounter with the new drug Prep. Paul who lives in Cape Town South Africa is just one of many who have shared their sexual experiences. Afraid of contracting Aids/HIV, Paul ventured throughout his life wondering when the day would come where he’d fall to the virus. He wasn’t one to wear condoms at all sexual occasions. Whether with one partner or an orgy, that fear always lingered but he pushed through it. That’s whom he was, and he wasn’t about to change.

His condom use was at roughly 50%. Through his ups and downs he was graced with luck each time he was tested. Yet each time something would eat him up inside. He viewed the people he slept with not for the virus they could carry but for the human beings they were. So why did this fear overtake him? Maybe just maybe it was because there shouldn’t be fear against those with the virus, because there is a possibility of having full protection. This is when he came across Truvada, which is also known as Prep. It changed his life for the better. So now with the use of a condom alongside his daily dosage of the drug, Paul no longer has to worry and he can appreciate those around him.So what does this all mean, are we all Paul? Or does each person have a different story?

It’s the 21^st century and we’ve come a long way. We’ve discovered antibiotics, contraceptives, and treatments for certain STIs. So what do all of these discoveries have in common? They are all preventive measures to keep us safe from diseases or critical consequences. For the past century there has been a decline in HIV contraction according to the CDC. This could be due to the fact that the world has begun to truly understand that safe sex is the best sex. Although we have things such as antibiotics and treatments, one of the main preventatives that’s well known for controlling the spread of STI’s and other diseases and that is a condom.

However this winning streak seems to be declining in the past year, not only due to sex education still being considered taboo in certain parts of the united states but also because many Americans still have this belief that certain miracle drugs such as antibiotics can solve all of their problems and because of this, they become careless. That is where the topic of Prep comes to play. Prep is considered to be a new form of HIV preventative. It has come into play for the past two years and has tackled the sphere of sexual activity very quickly. This is due to Prep’s high preventative rate.

Remember Paul and his story? He was one of the lucky few who in the end no longer feared engaging in sex because of his use of both condoms and Prep. Not everyone tends to be Paul unfortunately.

This is what causes a possible breach in the safety we’ve been advocating for in the past decade. Most people would argue that Prep is all you need to have safe sex without a condom. This couldn’t be further from the truth.   Prep only has a 90% preventative rate for HIV. That leaves a 10% gap that should be covered if one uses a condom. There are also many other STI’s and diseases that can still be caught that are just as life threatening as HIV.

There are plenty of stories of the positive outcomes Prep has bestowed upon those who struggle with dating someone who’s HIV positive or those who have very sexual lives. As well as certain television shows such as “How to Get Away With Murder” that also advocate for the use of Prep.

While How to Get Away with Murder may have hit the nail right on the head with Prep advocacy as well as showing the struggle of HIV. Some personal stories on the blog My Prep Experience varies when it comes to the Prep and HIV experience. Although many argue that Prep has allowed them to be sexually active without fear again, there are some who blatantly disregard the fact that they aren’t being as safe as they can be. This is where the controversy can be found. What happens when a herd mentality is introduced into an already stigmatized situation?

Safety is threatened and could all but dissipate. To truly achieve the possibility of preventing HIV and stopping a repetition of the “Aids outbreak” in the 80’s we as a people must be progressive as how we view safe sex. It’s not just one pill that will make a difference. There are many steps we’ve yet to achieve and it’s been estimated that for us to really get to the goal of wiping away the epidemic that the HIV virus has caused will be around 2030. Most people from the 80’s will have aged and gone on with their lives. New generations will be ushered through and it’s up to them to take initiative and educate themselves on all of the ways to prevent infection and not just solely rely on one.

(UNAIDS graph on preventatives and targets to reach the end of the AIDS epidemic.)

“Don’t worry I’m on Prep” is a phrase that has taken many communities by storm and unfortunately the more it trends the less progress we can make. Whether it is at a club, bar, at a university, or even at home. Wherever and whoever you have sex with. Being 100% safe is advocating for progression. Believing prep is the answer to an epidemic that has rooted itself into the lives of so many is irresponsible. I would know, I’ve been subjected to it myself. I’ve had people tell me “put down the condom it’s 2016”. In return I’ve had them leave with a lecture and a new date: 2030.

So the next time you hear that phrase or consider taking Truvada, remember to be progressive. Recall all of the things that truly go into being safe. As Paul from my prep experience puts it “For the first time in years, here is something other than a condom that can prevent HIV infection. Use the two together and you could almost swim in HIV body fluids and still be safe (ok maybe not really, but it was a thought).”

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

[1] I believe my title hones in on the two issues at hand. HIV awareness and the use of Prep. The lede grabs the user by introducing a piece of someone’s personal story (Paul): People don’t always think in the heat of passion, they just dive on in and deal with consequences later”.

[2]  My intro is once again based on the personal experience of Paul and his struggle with HIV awareness and Prep use. It really addresses the controversy of my topic while at the same time exhibiting exigency and showing how dire the issue is.

[3] Exploring the statistics behind HIV and also who advocates for it were ideas that I thought required further analysis and I came up with a lot of information that the typical person would not know about if they didn’t look it up.

[4 My argument is very straight forward yet the issue itself is a complex one. My use of primary research with personal stories as well as secondary research such as CDC statistics and referencing shows that advocate for my issue all tie together and help push the uniqueness and evidence IN style.

[5]  I of course discussed the issue of well why shouldn’t people use Prep. I made it clear that Prep is a great advance in HIV prevention but that the issue at hand is how people are using it irresponsibly and how that deters from its purpose.

[6]     I believe you can see my research and persuasive stance from looking over the other questions I’ve answered. I even went as far as to include my own experience with the topic.

[7]  I used many visual sources, primary research was based around personal stories, and my secondary research spanned from tv shows to the cdc, and other aids advocacy programs.

[8I pushed the research I made alongside the personal stories aspect of my article showing how both go hand on hand but also complicate one another.

9 The use of personal stories (including my own) as well as reaching out to the reader that this too affects them even if they don’t know it I believe shows how persuasive my article is as well as my use of rhetorical tools.

[10 I used examples of the tv show I mentioned, graphs and tables that addressed some of the statistics. Some of my visuals were meant to tug at your heart. Especially the gif of oliver crying because he’s positive with HIV.

[11 I truly wanted to hone in on how HIV was still important and how the advocacy behind it isn’t as relevant anymore. I also wanted to really address Prep use in a more constructive way as my peers suggested I needed to add more content to that issue and expand upon who uses it and who advocates for it.

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate? I hyperlinked each and every one of my sources.

[13   My grammar is always edited twice before I submit my work in all of my classes. My style flows well and uses the research at hand in a practical way.

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When I was younger, my dad and I used to go on camping trips all of the time.  All fathers and sons have things they do together, and being from Southern California, it wasn’t too far of a drive up the coast to find a nice campground where we could relax, get away from society, and spend quality time.  One of my most vivid memories from these trips was that my dad would always instill in me the idea of leaving the campsite cleaner and nicer than when we arrived.  Much of the time, we would get to the site and there would be beer cans, trash, and other unsavory items around the campsite that were left by the rude people staying before us.  But, it was important to my dad to leave the site in a cleaner and more respectable condition than when we arrived.  Even if the campsite wasn’t too dirty to begin with, we always found a way to make it nicer for the next people who were to arrive.  I tell this story because I feel that it relates to the current state of our country, and my mentality towards it.  When I eventually pass on and leave this Earth, I want to make sure that I did all I can to leave it in better condition and in better hands than when I arrived on it.  Unfortunately, I feel quite strongly that a Donald Trump presidency would do damage to the country, and possibly the world as a whole, and that is why I feel that we have an obligation to openly and honestly discuss and bring to light his past speech and behavior in order to better educate voters in hopes of them being informed on who they may be voting to lead our country into the future, during these tumultuous times.

Up until about a year ago, last June to be exact, I didn’t give Donald Trump much thought at all.  Obviously, like most people, I knew who he was.  He’s an extremely wealthy businessman who made billions in the real estate market, as well as had a successful reality TV show.  Besides that, however, he had nothing to do with my life, and thus, didn’t take up too much space in my mind.  That all changed, however, when he decided to announce his candidacy for President of the United States.  Almost immediately upon announcing, controversy ensued, and has followed ever since, based on some of the language and rhetoric he has used.  He has become a household name, and although we do live in a country where free speech is protected, I am mightily concerned about a Trump presidency and the ramifications it would have on future generations, based not only on much of the rhetoric that has been used by Mr. Trump over the course of the last year, but also his actions and language throughout the course of his entire adult life.

Because of the fact that most people didn’t give Mr. Trump the time of day up until he decided to run for President, they are unaware of the fact that his nasty and arguably racist rhetoric has shaped much of his adult life.  Before I began the process of researching this man and his past transgressions for this article, I also thought that his worrisome thoughts and views were only over the past year.  However, I have learned that is false.  This article will not only discuss the comments he has made over the course of the past year that are cause for concern, but also his actions and comments over the course of his entire lifetime that should make people think twice before voting for him.  I feel like it should be the job and obligation of all Americans to make decisions not only based on themselves, but based on how it will affect their children, and their children’s children.  As a result, Donald Trump and his proposed policies should raise eyebrows and strike a nerve inside the heart and soul of every American.  In many ways, this country was founded on the principles of inclusion, and built on the backs of immigrants and other “undesirables” who wished to escape oppression and create a better life for themselves and their families, and during a time in which we have a candidate wanting to abort that lifestyle and abort that sense of inclusion, as a nation, we shall not succumb to the fear he is trying to instill in us.

As mentioned before, it is my deepest and most sincere wish that the reader gain a better understanding of who Donald Trump is both as a person, and a presidential candidate.  I hate to continue to drone on and on with this repetitive line, but it is so important to be informed about who one is voting for.  In that same vein, I will chronologically detail the past and current wrongdoings of Mr. Trump and discuss the things he has both said and done throughout his life that leave many, including myself, seriously questioning his ability to be the leader of not only this country, but the free world.

Starting all the way back in 1973, Donald and his father Fred Trump were building housing complexes all across New York City.  They became the subjects of a US federal investigation, based on the notion that they had been discriminating against minorities who wished to purchase apartments in those complexes.  Throughout the course of the investigation, it was found that Trump employees had been using coded messages to signify the race, or ethnicity, of the potential applicants.  Perhaps the most notorious mark that was used was the letter “C”, to show that the applicant was colored.  As part of a sting operation inside this larger governmental investigation, there was a white woman, as well as a black woman, who both went to the front desk at one of these complexes asking to purchase a home for them and their families.  Not surprisingly, they were given different answers.  According to the investigators, the white woman was treated with dignity and was helped, while the black woman was told that there was no space for her and her family.  At the end of the investigation, there was not a substantial enough amount of evidence to bring any criminal charges down upon the Trump Organization.  Donald did mention this in his autobiography, but definitely downplayed the significance of it.  He said that “the government was not able to prove its case and we paid a small settlement without admitting any guilt.”  While it is true that the government was not able to prove its case, it is quite unsettling and frankly, quite alarming with the evidence that they were able to find.

If we fast forward in time 18 years, to the year 1991, we come across a man named John O’Donnell, who was the president of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.  When interviewing Donald for a book that he was writing during the early 90’s, according to O’Donnell, Mr. Trump said that “Laziness is a trait in blacks.  I truly believe that.”  Now, because of the fact that there is no audio recording, it is simply conjecture and speculation as to whether or not Donald did in fact say that quote.  However, it is still quite alarming that in the year 2016, about 150 years after slavery was outlawed, we still have a presidential frontrunner who is being accused of holding these pernicious beliefs.  Like he does with many people who disagree with him and say something negative about him, Donald has called Mr. O’Donnell a “loser”, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that their seems to be a pattern that follows Donald when it comes to his hurtful rhetoric and shameful actions.

Up to this point, we have raised concerns about Donald’s candidacy for President based on two of the more notable times in his life that caused speculation about his racist views and actions.  Now, we will fast forward to the present day, and discuss both his words and his actions over the course of the past year.  During this time, he has said and done many things, covering a wide range of ethnic groups, that not only are hurtful and wrong, but give credence to the idea that both instances I mentioned in the above paragraphs could very well be true.

The three main groups that Mr. Trump has targeted over the course of his campaign have been African Americans, Muslims and Mexicans.  Now, lets work backwards and discuss how he has treated these groups since announcing his run for President.  In his opening speech, he viciously attacked Mexicans and immigration as a whole.  Not only did he call Mexicans rapists and murderers, but he also stated his goal to deport all illegal immigrants that are currently here, without giving thought to the repercussions that would have on families.  Now, I am from Los Angeles.  I know firsthand that most Mexicans and Latin Americans, whether legal or not, are simply hardworking people who wish to keep their noses clean and work to support their families.  Now, are there murderers and rapists among them?  Sure, probably some.  However, generalizations like the ones Mr. Trump makes when it comes to Mexicans are not right, and they are part of the problem that we have with racial stereotyping in our country to this very day.  In addition, he has gone after Muslims repeatedly with his rhetoric, again making generalizations that are both disrespectful and hurtful, but also not true.  Throughout his campaign, he has proposed torturing the families of Islamic terrorists, and said that any soldier not willing to follow those orders would have no choice.  He has also discussed patrolling Muslim neighborhoods at a more increased frequency than other neighborhoods, he has stated that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering on September 11, 2001 when the World Trade Center was being brought down, and he has said that as President, he would stop the influx of Syrian refugees into the country.  While his supporters say that he is simply doing this to keep us safe, there is no doubt that his vicious stereotypes and generalizations towards Muslims have offended many people, and much like his comments about Mexicans, are simply untrue.

African Americans have had a history in our country of being subjected to lower standards of living, as well as higher incarceration rates and higher rates of police brutality.  In a time when we should be figuring out how to quell their anger and figure out a way to create a more peaceful and accepting society for them, Donald Trump has seemed to ignite a fire and anger within the black community.  One of the most notable examples of his disrespect for their community came when he was endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan.  Instead of disavowing any white supremacist group, because of their treatment towards African Americans and other minorities, Donald decided instead to wait until he “got more information”, and then after much media scrutiny, finally decided to disavow.  In addition, another instance of his disrespect towards African Americans happened at a Donald Trump rally.  When a black protestor was punched by a white protestor, chaos ensued.  Now, instead of using his voice to calm the collective nerves of black people across the country, and show that he cares about them, Mr. Trump instead offered to pay the legal fees of the man who punched the protestor.  Not only is that juvenile and ridiculous, but it isn’t very presidential.

Right now, the future of our country is at stake.  Just like my dad taught me, it is right to leave things in better condition than when you arrived.  That applied to campsites when I was younger, and it applies to our country now.  We are at a crossroads in our country’s future, and its important to recognize that the rhetoric and behavior that has been displayed by Donald Trump throughout this campaign, and throughout the course of his life is alarming, frightening, and isn’t right for this country.  As a result, I caution everyone to take this article seriously and to do your own research before voting for this man next November.

The People of Flint, Michigan have been through enough Governor Snyder!  Do the right thing: Resign from office!

To put some perspective on the over two yearlong water crisis tormenting the people of Flint, one must first understand the history of this city, its relationship with pollution, and the auto-makers who polluted it.

In 1907, GM founded what would later be a multi-billion dollar, multi-national company.  The company set its headquarters in Flint, Michigan.  It would employ as many as 349,000 people in plants around the world.  Several of these plants were located in Flint, and others in the neighboring towns of Saginaw, Pontiac, and Lansing.   It was an industry that boomed, and directly contributed to the growth and prosperity of the city.  Times were good for the residents of Flint, for years.  Little did these residents realize, however, that their city was being poisoned.

The development of automobiles and their supporting components, like any young technology, used toxic chemicals that even today remain in the environment of most industrial cities.  Flint’s relationship with lead actually began almost 80 years ago.  David Rosner, who teaches History & ethics of public health at Columbia University explains:  “By 1936, the car industry had become very dependent on lead. It went into their batteries and welding, paints, lacquers, enamels and other finishes, as well as the gasoline GM cars depended on. As any old car enthusiast knows, when refinishing an old car, make sure to wear a mask. Huge amounts of lead and other toxins were pumped into the air, water, streams, and ground in and around the mammoth car factories in Flint and other Michigan cities. It is unlikely that anyone living in or near Flint then—or today—could escape the impact of unrestrained pollution.”

Lead was also used in the residential infrastructure mating welds that connected Flint’s municipal water supply to each house that received water service.  Most of these houses were built in the 1930’s and 40’s, when the danger of lead was unrealized.  And even with lead in the pipes leading up to the homes, citizens were in no danger, as long as the lead stayed in the pipes.  For over 50 years, Flint’s residents got their water from Lake Huron distributed by the Detroit Water and Sewage Department (DWSD).  The water system was adequate and safe.

Things began to turn badly for the citizens of Flint in the late 1980s, when GM closed several factories.  The city suffered severe economic depression from having more residents than available jobs.  A resulting spike in crime rate followed and Flint became known as “one of the most dangerous cities in the United States.”  Eventually the city’s coffers ran dry and the local treasury found itself in a series of economic crises.  Governor Rick Snyder sent an 8 member review team to Flint to assess its economic status.  The team recommended appointing an emergency manager to make drastic changes to try and save Flint from bankruptcy.  That manager looked over the budget and attempted to cut costs wherever possible.  One of these savings would come by changing water supply from Lake Huron to water from the Flint River.  The change would save the city a total of $4 million.  The switch was made and a new water was flushed through the old pipes that comprised Flint’s aging distribution network.  With the new water differing chemically from the old water, a far more corrosive water was now interacting with the lead solder welds that had been safe for so many years before.  Lead then leeched from those welds and entered the homes of most of the residents of Flint.

So now there are economically depressed, crime-ridden citizens, who have grown up in an environment polluted by lead (and other toxins), receiving tap water which contains dangerous levels of lead.  This lead, when consumed, can cause lead poisoning and Legionnaires disease.

Residents complained about the water’s color and odor.  But for months they were ignored and told that the water was fine.  It took almost a year of complaints and investigations until, finally in October 2015, officials switched the water supply back to the DWSD.    But the damage to the welds was done.  Filters were supplied to residents, but there was little more the city could do in the short term.

Today the residents of Flint find themselves in terrible position.  The pipes leading up to the homes must be replaced in order to eradicate the poisoned welds.  The many cases of lead poisoning and legionaries disease must be dealt with for years to come.  Steps need to be taken to hold the people responsible for this disaster accountable for their actions.  The related health costs are estimated of over a billion dollars.

Governor Snyder claimed that the reason for this crisis was failures on multiple levels of government.  He was pressured to release emails regarding his handling of the situation.  The New York Times reviewed these emails: “the documents provide a glimpse of state leaders who were at times dismissive of the concerns of residents, seemed eager to place responsibility with local government and, even as the scientific testing was hinting at a larger problem, were reluctant to acknowledge it.”

So it seems Snyder and his cohorts were more interested in finding where to place the blame then actually doing what was best to immediately fix the problem.  The role of a governor is to fix the problems that face his state by delegating the responsibilities to his officials.  He is much like the CEO of a company.  He is responsible for the overall success of his state.  If a CEO were running a company that faced such catastrophic failures with a portion of his company, there is good chance he would be out of a job once the dust settled.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber resigned from office in 2009 over a scandal involving his fiancée’s role as an advisor with a conflict of interest.  No people were injured in this controversy and the lies amounted to little more than a few fibs to make money.  In Michigan, however, the citizens were ignored and lied to about critical issues affecting their very survival.  Congressman Matt Cartwright (Rep Pa) scolded Snyder during a Congressional hearing on the state of the water in Flint, MI: “There you are dripping with guilt but drawing your paycheck, hiring lawyers at the expense of the people and doing your dead-level best to spread accountability to others.  Pretty soon we will have men who strike their wives saying, ‘I’m sorry dear but there were failures at all levels.’ People who put dollars over the fundamental safety of the people do not belong in government, and you need to resign!”

The story continues to develop as investigations into the events lead to conclusions of who is responsible.  Michigan’s attorney general is filing criminal charges against three government employees involved in the water crisis in Flint.  The state alleges the workers tried to hide problems with the city’s contaminated water supply.

Attorney General Bill Schuette is charging two state environmental officials and a Flint city official with felonies for misleading regulators about the amount of lead in Flint’s water and falsifying reports about the water quality. Schuette alleges the criminal activity involved “intentionally tampered (sic) with evidence of lead levels on certain water samples in homes of residents of Flint.” For his part, Governor Rick Snyder says he finds the charges “troubling.” But when the Governor was asked if he feared he had done anything that could result in criminal charges, Snyder responded “I don’t believe so.”

His answer is less than inspiring and somewhat tinged with equivocation.  Even if Snyder stays free of criminal charges, his actions as a governor were inadequate to say the least.

Every week there is a new development, and with no shortage of dramatic events.  Just yesterday it was reported the first person to file a suit over the wrongdoings affecting Flint residents was shot and killed in her home.

A bigger problem than one city

Flint’s situation has brought to the attention of Americans something that few give much thought to: dilapidated infrastructure.  It is out of sight and therefore, out of most of our minds.  But when something catastrophic goes wrong, and something as integral as water distribution becomes compromised, we are forced to evaluate the state of our infrastructure, which is sadly outdated.

The cost of repairing and replacing the 13,000 lead service lines damaged by the Flint water change is anywhere from $55 million to $400 million.  Plans are currently underway to have the system repaired within a year.

Flint is reflective of water distribution systems in most other cities across the U.S.  Though they don’t have the lead problem Flint does, they do have an outdated infrastructure that can be a danger and at the very least, inefficient.  Also included under the category of infrastructure are; roads, bridges, dams, sewers, electrical grids and tunnels.

It is a tough sell to get politicians to allocate money for a mostly hidden cost.  So these structures suffer years of neglect.  The American Society of Civil Engineers rated America’s infrastructure with a score of D+.  It will take billions of dollars to make the repairs and replacements necessary, however, the work must be done before we face another consequence of inaction, such as the one the residents of Flint are facing.

In order to avoid another disaster like this one, experts should be involved in a decision making process like this.  If only Flint officials had consulted a water resource engineering firm before they made this decision, this whole thing could have been avoided.  In the future, decisions like these will most likely be made under much more scrutiny.

In an effort to save $4 million, over a billion dollars will have to be spent in order to fix this one single problem.  If any good can come out of this, hopefully it forces us to be made aware of the serious infrastructure neglect in this country and take steps to update these systems.  The residents of Flint will suffer, and hopefully not without affecting a nationwide change that is paramount in our country.

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

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

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

“She was criticized for caring for her child.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNIT 3 REFLECTION QUESTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You were asked to first perform a quick-n-dirty search on your topic, then moved into the more sophisticated library databases. Please describe how you progressed from the general to the specific.  What worked?  What didn’t work?  Snafoos?  Advice for future researchers?  Be specific.

At first I just tried to get any source that seemed at least somewhat relevant. Then I read through a few, skimmed through a few, and I was able to collect a couple of key words that I would then use when I moved to the library databases. That allowed me to use key words that were more direct and to the point.

• Which sites or search engines yielded the most substantial results for you (think back to the search engines you were introduced to and the library databases that Patrick Williams walked you through) AltPress, Lexis Nexus, Proquest, etc.? WHY?  And HOW? Be specific.

I tried to use the databases that were provided and I did get a couple of articles but what I found was that due to the nature of my topic, it was more beneficial to go directly to google and read some articles from their that were simplified. I read through a few articles using the library databases and like I mentioned, I was able to collect some sophisticated key words that yielded a good amount of useful sources.

• Describe what you’ve learned about the research process (please don’t tell me “well, it takes time” or “it’s hard” or disingenuous comments—please try and be honestly reflective here). Use specific references to your own work.

I found that at times I wasn’t able to find useful articles because I was searching directly for articles that answered my question. After I realized that wasn’t working for me, I split my topic into sections and decided to search for articles based on those sections. At the end, I was able to answer my question by combining these sections together.

• Describe the challenges of this assignment, “The TED TALK.” What did you struggle with—and why?

The biggest challenge was my lack of experience with speaking to an audience directly. I also struggled with just find useful articles like I just explained. At first, I struggled with not finding articles but then when I had to present, I struggled with talking about the material in all of the articles I found within the 5 minutes that I was allotted.

• Describe your understanding of exigency and kairos—how does it pertain to your topic? Your research?

In order to give a good controversial presentation, the topic must be presently controversial. These words essentially mean that the articles found through research and the topic itself must be semi-recent otherwise nobody will have heard about it and that means that it probably isn’t important anymore. Discussions about a topic from 30 years ago can be very different it the topic were to be discussed again today due to a ever-changing culture.

• Describe your comfort level in navigating the library’s databases (specifically the search engines Patrick showed us) (1 being extremely unfamiliar—10 being masterful)—and explain.

I would say I’m about a 6 with comfort level. I still have a tough time using the different search assists that the databases provide but after I found a good method of finding good key words to search, utilizing the search databases became more easy.

• Explain the genre expectations of a TED TALK and how you were able to successfully adhere to these in your own TED TALK to the class. Please be specific.

With regard to expectation, I think it was important for me, especially with the nature of my topic, to keep the material at a level that people without any prior knowledge could understand. Most of my articles did this already but I had to go through and really try to understand the material so that I could do a better job explaining it. The biggest, and probably the hardest, was to be confident in the research I did and what I was saying. It is very hard for someone to pay attention to and believe in a presentation if the person presenting can’t get out a full sentence without using “um” multiple times. I was guilty of it but I tried to be conscience of it.

• As we shift to Unit III, you’ll draw from all the research you’ve compiled in Unit II, as well as additional primary research on the controversy. What type of primary research is feasible for the upcoming Unit? What are your ideas and what arguments are you looking to collect still?

Articles that come from people who work directly with nuclear energy will strengthen my argument. It will make it seem true because the person that would have written the article will have been directly in contact with the topic. I think it is imperative that I gather more articles that offer more contradicting views and maybe try to refute or agree with those arguments instead of ignoring them.

• What was something that we did as a class, discussed in conferences, did as homework, etc. that was helpful for your understanding of assignment or research? Why?

The best part of either the speed debating or putting the topics on paper on the board. Each of these allowed other perspectives to be heard and it provided a path for ideas to be shared. Even if someone said something that wasn’t true, it provided research material to prove that said idea wasn’t true.

Lately there have been food industry related issues that raises questions on how the society aren’t raising eyebrows. Everyone loves Chipotle, and they do their very best to satisfy their customers, but sadly Chipotle has taken a toll on their number of customers. Usually you had to wait in a long line, which started the moment you stepped into their front door, but now we can walk straight up to the counter. Chipotle receives their so-called fresh supply of ingredients from specific farmers and ranchers who raise their animals humanely with organically nourished vegetables from healthy soils. If that’s the case, how did they receive meat contaminated with E. coli, or sickening people with salmonella with their tomatoes.

If you have been watching the news recently, you know that there probably are some uncertainties in the food you eat. It should only take a few minutes to take a look around the web through news articles in current food politics and food safety issues to find out that there are some serious problems in our food industry. Chipotle is a great example to start with, although it’s not going so great for them. They have been fighting a battle with themselves and the public about the e. coli breakouts. According to the CDC website, there have been past cases of food borne illnesses, such as salmonella, listeria, and e. coli, and most of the issues surfaced from contamination or the soil in which the produce came from.

As stated in the article “You Are What They Eat” by Consumer Reports, to assess this issue of the safety of the nation’s consumers, they have investigated on their own and interviewed feed-industry experts and critics, but none of the top executives were willing to speak. This was raising a lot of concerns about how the federal government wasn’t doing its job to protect the food supply, which we consume. For example, in the Food Inc. documentary, they have shown us that chickens are genetically modified so that their body grows much faster, and fatter, but because it is such an unnatural growth through medications, their organs don’t catch up to their physical body growth, which makes us question, how are their bodies staying healthy if their organs can’t even catch up fast enough to maintain themselves.

Why stop there? The possibility of our supply of produces being contaminated may not be the only issue. Only a century ago, according to Marion Nestle, the only issues that we had to be concerned with were spoiled milk from infected animals and spoiled meat from sick animals. Now, because we have made so many changes to our food system, the current problems of food safety haven’t shown any new diseases, but different symptoms of the same disease. There are many different aspects as to why this is an issue to the modern day, and our federal government aren’t the only ones to blame. Pesticides have been used by farmers to chemically clean the produce of microorganisms, whether good or bad, and that is what we intake into our bodies. Stated by Blake Hurst in the article “Organic Illusions” in The American, It is very true that there are farmers who use organic pesticides to treat their land, but because the concentration of the chemical in the organic pesticide is incredibly low, they have to end up pumping an immense amount just to keep up with a standard pesticide.

The Stanford study stated in the article of “Organic Illusions” have found how organic foods were significantly less prone to having pesticide residues, but much more likely to have e. coli. E. coli can survive in the digestive system and in fecal matter, so it is very possible that contaminated animals share the same soil with the farmland and the animals surrounding them, which is how it spreads. Overtime, our pesticides have been killing microorganisms, but we all know that even the hand sanitizers we use for our hands don’t kill all of the germs, as if it’s leaving one to survive to live to tell the tale of its lost brothers and sisters.

These pesticides are creating a new and different environment for these pathogens to adapt to, so what does that tell us? Our chemicals in these pesticides, whether standard or organic, are eventually habitable by pathogens to adapt to and create these, not new, but different illnesses. Although organic produces are labeled organic, it is possible that they may have traces of conventional methods. “Organic foods are labeled as organic because producers certify that they have followed organic procedures”, but there aren’t any precise procedures to tests these products for being 100% organic. It is possible for organic produces to have conventional pesticides present in or on them through leftover residue in the soil or the chemical drifting from neighboring farm fields.

If the pesticides weren’t bad enough, the medications that the animals consume may give you quite a shock. Of course even we, as humans, take medications from time to time to help ourselves with headaches or body aches, but we need to remember that everything the animal consumes, we consume as well. Because our chickens are treated with medications for the purpose of killing microbes and fattening them, the medication contains arsenic. I know what you’re thinking: “Isn’t arsenic a toxic chemical?” Why yes it is, but because these medications, apparently, are necessary in the feed industry, the FDA has made a tolerance limit of 2000 ppb in the chickens’ liver and 500 ppb in its meat. Data was collected through the analysis of the chickens liver and meat, since it is the part most people eat, and the average level of arsenic was low compared to the regulations, but still, we need to remember that arsenic is linked to cancer.

Assuming these traces of chemical weren’t enough, we don’t even know if the seafood supply is completely safe. As reported in the “Consumer Reports” about seafood, the FDA is responsible for guaranteeing the safety of seafood, most of which is imported. The FDA, out of the 80% imported seafood, only tests about 2%, mainly for drug residues. Salmon is a widely popular seafood choice, rich in omega-3 fatty acids, but in farms, they’re fed concentrated fish and fish oil, which makes us question how heart-healthy these salmons are compared to the ones in the wild. The Hites team at Indiana University ran tests comparing carcinogens in wild and farmed salmons, and they resulted with farmed salmons containing more PCBs and dioxins than wild salmons, especially the ones from Europe. Still, the FDA was concerned about foreign fish and fish-feed producers for using unapproved drugs, leaving traces in food that may pose a threat to the human health.

We have come a long way as humans, advancing in different number of technological and chemical concerns, but if we have come to a point where we need to ask ourselves if organic products are truly healthy for us or not, then something is definitely wrong, especially in the food industry. Having said that, I’m afraid the soil that we pump our chemicals into, whether natural or organic, is altering the unrefined natural soil we used to have. Genetically altered produces are chemically treated to be more appealing in their physical form, but nutritionally, they aren’t any healthier. In Food Inc., the documentary showed us farmers who were wrongfully treated to treat their produce and animals the wrong way, but they have to make a living somehow so they don’t have a choice. They sign a contract to do the work they do and keep their mouth shut about it. Some even got their contracted permanently suspended by the people they worked for, which even they didn’t even come out for an interview to spill the truth.

We view endless commercials and public statement announcements concerning the health of our bodies and to keep fit, but how will that be possible if we can buy an entire meal at a fast food restaurant rather than one piece of fruit? Family income is the leading cause of obesity, which already says a lot, and we’re not doing anything to help this cause. If there is an issue, the first step is to address that issue in the first place, but we don’t see top executives coming out with apologies; only articles of people getting sick or dying of something contaminated that they consumed.

1) The writers project is a reiterated version of the source the writer is trying to emphasize on. It is to focus the writers beliefs and words from the writers point of view that they received from the source. I was able to obtain the view point of the writers project through, of course, the writers article itself, but also researching the sources that the writers said where they got their information from. My own project is to start from the beginning, as to where all these diseases and infections started becoming worse. Through multiple sources, it was found that our worries, in the subject of foodborne illnesses, have changed since we have made advance in the agricultural world.

2) The “sorting it out” workshop helped identify the experts, sources, main topic/idea, and sources the writer was providing. It helped categorize and separate each information that felt important to the topic, and although not every single piece of information written in the “sorting it out” workshop, it helped focus my topic into a specific idea of what I wanted the readers to know in my blog article.

3) My understanding of synthesis is a quick basic summarized idea of the topic one is trying to emphasize in order to expand and detail the idea more as the writing progresses. The importance of this is to start on the focus of ones topic so that they have an idea of what they need to fix, emphasize, or delete. I started out by writing a few sentences for what I wanted to talk about, and depending on the right transition between paragraphs, I emphasized the specific topic more in order to fully detail, as much as possible, the provided information for the readers.

4) My accomplishment in this unit is the in-depth research I had to do in a topic that I had zero experience in. I had absolutely no idea of the background story of farms, foodborne illnesses, political obstructions, and more. I had to intake a lot of information to fully understand everything.

5) My idea didn’t exactly “evolve” into something more. I basically had the same topic/idea from the very beginning, which I even emphasized during class about pesticides and such. I started with my draft, which was only a bit over 1000 words, and for the final 1400 word paper, I included another source to expand my reasoning as to why I believe agricultural advances in our history have made drastic, possibly dangerous, changes. Afterwards, I separated the paragraphs, bit by bit, as well as included hyperlinks in order to portray the view of a blog article.

6) This is the same question as question 5. The whole idea of “evolving” a draft of an essay is to organize it the way you, the writer, believes should be organized. Where is the lede going to be? What is going to be stated in the intro? What are you going to include in your first paragraph in order to pull in your reader? And so on. I organized by article by starting with the lede in order to pull in readers, which is talking about the love of many people around the nation; Chipotle. Then I compared Chipotles foodborne illnesses to other foodborne illnesses connected in my sources, and reasoned that this may have been caused by decades of changes in our soil and food system.

7) 3 things I synthesized on were antibiotics fed to animals, pesticides, and the lack of safety in the food industry. In the respective order that I listed, paragraph 3 & 4, paragraphs 4, 5, & 6, and paragraph 7 & 8 are examples of how detailed and concise the information I provided were. Again, through the process of my draft, I input all the important information that should be provided, and in my final, I simply included another source to expand my explanations and sources.

8) I did not provide a lede for my draft, for the reason that we learned about “ledes” on the day the draft was due. During class, I wrote out my lede in order to ease the readers into my article. I felt that if I started out the blog with statistical information, readers would find it dull and hard to take in the information, so I provided the lede to show a glimpse of what my blog was going to be about.

9) Now that I’ve learned about what a lede is, how to use statistical information to my advantage, numerous sources to back up my information, and transition between paragraphs, I’m eager to believe that my blog-writing skills have improved. Through peer reviews, I have learned that my paragraphs need to be spaced out more to fit the “blog” profile, and that I needed to include hyperlinks. Still, I was able to focus my argument and maintain the readers attention throughout my work.

Let’s not beat around the bush, America. We’re a pretty fat country. We love sports, but we have a pizza and wings by our side while we’re chillin’ on the couch watching them. We’re so fat, actually, that according to the Food Research and Action Center , more than two thirds of adults in America are fat.

There’s clearly a solution to being fat besides just exercise, and that’s substituting your cheese-sticks for celery. But trust me, eating healthier is definitely easier said than done, especially when broccoli costs more than a pack of brownies at the grocery store. The cheapest food is not only the least healthy, but it’s more likely that that food isn’t 100% organic.

Bottom line, folks — poor and marginalized people are the most affected by big corporations and their lack of transparency with where and how food is processed — this is because the most manipulated foods are more accessible and cheaper.

In the 2008 documentary Food Inc., which describes the deceitful processes involved with food processing, a working-class Hispanic family perfectly describes the struggle to eat healthily, The family consists of a mother, father, and two young daughters. The parents work extremely long hours, so they don’t have time to cook. Rather than buying vegetables or other healthy foods, the majority of the family’s income goes towards the father’s medical bills — the dad has diabetes, and it’s getting worse by the day.

And what is the only food this family can afford in the meanwhile? Burgers, fries, and sodas from the dollar menu at Burger King. And let’s face it, this family probably doesn’t really have access to anything like a farmer’s market, which is probably way farther than the corner convenience store selling Twinkies and Dorito chips, as well as fast food restaurants that are on every corner.

So basically, what we have here is a cyclic situation: the family can’t afford healthy food, so they eat unhealthy. Family eats unhealthy, family becomes unwell, and must pay lofty medical bills. Paying these expensive bills, family can’t afford healthy food — and family suffers in the process.

Not to mention, the food that poor people are able to afford is very far from face value. Meaning, a lot of the cheap foods in stores and supermarkets have been ultra-processed, to the point where the ingredients are barely identifiable: I mean really, what average American can really tell me what saccharin, polydextrose, xanthan gum, maltodextrin actually is? If people knew how much of these alien-sounding ingredients were actually in our food, I’m sure we would think twice before putting it in our bodies.

And you know what? Those alien ingredients are all made of corn.

Yep, you read right. According to Food Inc, 90% of processed foods on the shelf contain either a corn or soybean ingredient. This means that all those boxes and cans on the shelves, regardless of what they say on the front label, have corn in ‘em somehow. Apparently, scientists have decided that adding corn to everything helps with preservation and shelf life. This makes these foods unhealthy, not to mention very vague and untrustworthy. Because it’s being used in so many foods, in fact, 30% of United States land is being used for — you guessed it — planting corn. Fields and fields of it.

If you thought that processed boxed and canned foods were the only sketchy food items that need to be avoided because of corn, you thought wrong. Corn has something to do with the sketchiness of our meat and poultry items too. From an evolutionary standpoint, most farm animals should be eating grain and grass for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s logically cheaper because cows naturally fertilize the grass they eat, which produces more grass. Besides that seemingly obvious point, though, grass and grain digests much better, leaving the cows and chickens to be healthier, and the meat from them safer to eat.

Instead, cows, chickens, and other farm animals are fed corn, which as we know from the processed foods, leads to defective, unhealthy meat. Marion Nestle, a food safety professor and public advocate, points out that feeding corn to cattle basically fattens them up, so there is more meat available to sell.

And trust me, big meat packagers have taken full advantage of being able to make more money — as of 2010, the top 4 meat packers controlled 80% of the market. One of these meat-buying tycoons is home to one of America’s most prized possessions: the Big Mac. That’s right, McDonald’s is actually the largest purchaser of ground beef in the United States. This means that even if you aren’t necessarily eating McD’s, you are more than likely eating food that was processed at one of their slaughterhouses.

The problem with feeding cows corn, though, is that corn actually makes the meat that we eat from them more prone to disease — and not just any cute little harmless disease, either — it’s E. Coli 0157:H7.

If you know anything about E. Coli 0157:H7, you’d know a couple of things: First off, you’d know that this specific strain is heat resistant, and is still infectious even in small amounts. You’d know that nowadays, it contains a gene that basically destroys red blood cells, and we all know that without those, your health is in for loads of trouble — kidney failure, bloody diarrhea, you name it.

And of course, this yummy disease can be found sitting pretty right in that Big Mac of yours.

The fact that these cows eat corn instead of what they should actually eat doesn’t help anybody’s case–what do you mean?. It also doesn’t help that these cows are packed into confined slaughterhouses by the hundreds, and are standing in their own shit for hours at a time, making it more than easy for this strand of E. Coli to spread from one cow to the next. The worst part about all of this is that the ground beef mass produced by McDonald’s to make that one hamburger can have almost a thousand cows in a single patty, making the disease even more unavoidable.

With these disgusting facts about where the food that most American eats comes from coming to light, you may be asking: “why didn’t I know about all of this before?! I eat burgers all the time! They’re delicious!” Well, the answer to that is simple really: these meat-packaging tycoons don’t want you to know. You see, if you knew about the repulsive schemes that these large companies were imploring to make money, they wouldn’t be making money! And if you’re wondering whether you can write a stern letter to your congressman about this very relevant issue, you’d be wasting your time.

Why? Because the government is in on the scam too.

There’s a whole labyrinth of laws and laws for those laws, put in place by government officials who have roots in the food industries that they are supposed to be regulating. When it comes to food safety regulations, there are over 30 separate laws, implemented by over 10 different agencies, in six cabinet-level departments. If you think this is confusing and unnecessary, you are absolutely right. While the USDA may regulate corn dogs, for example, the FDA, which is a completely different organization, regulates bagel dogs. This makes it very easy for deadly Big Mac diseases to slip right underneath the government’s noses, making the American people sick.

One of the easiest ways to avoid all of this commotion and life-threatening food, of course, is to buy organic grown meats and veggies. But of course, this is definitely easier said than done for that working class family that is already in the vortex of unhealthy eating.

So in order for that working-class Hispanic family to prevent “death by corn”, they may have a couple of options. First of all, yeah, fast food? Stay far, FAR away from that as often as possible. Secondly,  every little change to daily eating habit counts. Subbing that celery stick for that chocolate every now and again is a step in the right direction, even if it’s just twice or three times a week. It definitely wouldn’t be easy, but to be honest, severe illness due to corn? It’s just not worth the trouble. |

Asile Patin is a sophomore at Syracuse University, focusing on food politics in her Writing 205 class.

————————————————————————————————————————–

REFLECTION

1.) I think that the “writer’s project” differs slightly from the meaning of the text. Instead, it’s basically what the writer’s purpose is in writing it, and how they have attempted to pursue that purpose through their writing style. When thinking about this in terms of the texts for this unit, I really had to understand the writer themselves, and what their background and experience is in their particular field. If I were to just read or watch the texts for face value, I would have missed the nuances that come with the writer’s particular “projects” and purposes. For my post, I made my particular claims based on my background, and my understanding of how food politics affect the people at the bottom of the socioeconomic latter.

2.) The term identification section on the “Sorting it Out” worksheet was the most beneficial. It made it easier to understand what the writer was trying to convey in a very literal manner. This helped me synthesize texts that had similar messages.

3.) Synthesis is important because it’s basically a consolidation of a lot of different texts. This consolidation makes grasping a concept, and later explaining it, much easier for me. The specific E. Coli information would have been very difficult for me to understand if I was reading the cold, manuscript style Nestle reading alone. However, synthesizing that information with Food. Inc and the Consumer Report article, I was able to realize a humanized understanding of what effects the disease could actually have.

4.) Overall, I think that I am proud of how simply I was able to explain my thoughts. Because this isn’t the formal writing that I am used to, I was able to say what I really meant, without confusing fluff.

5.) My main idea was basically that poor people are at “steak” when dealing with food politics that are controlled in a monopolistic manner. With this, I was able to follow a chain of thought style writing, talking about corn, the ill-quality of slaughterhouses, and E. Coli, while still being able to bring the conclusion about in a circular manner. I think the “Sorting it Out” workshop helped especially with this.

6.) Again, I used a chain of thought style writing technique. I wanted to make sure that the reader could understand how things were connecting in a manner that wasn’t too confusing. For my lede specifically, I became a lot more concise with what I was trying to say, which made it easier for me to follow that thought.

Draft: “The lack of transparency in the food market presents a level of concern from the American people about what we are consuming, and how the foods we eat affect our health. From the surface level, individuals concerned with their health should steer clear of obviously unhealthy food — fast food, fats, desserts and snacks, etc. With the steadily rising obesity rate in America (can I provide a statistic here?), healthier alternatives for these food items, such as leafy greens and organic food, should instead be prioritized. “Healthier” eating seems like a definite way to ensure the American people’s well being, and tons of ad campaigns promote a healthier lifestyle. However, for poor people, this is much more of a tougher battle.”

7.) In the paragraph discussing how disgusting cow breeding and meat packaging is, and how it breeds E. Coli, I synthesized information from Food Inc, from Nestle, and from Consumer reports.

“If you know anything about E. Coli 0157:H7, you’d know a couple of things: First off, you’d know that this specific strain is heat resistant, and is still infectious even in small amounts. You’d know that nowadays, it contains a gene that basically destroys red blood cells, and we all know that without those, your health is in for loads of trouble — kidney failure, bloody diarrhea, you name it.

And of course, this yummy disease can be found sitting pretty right in that Big Mac of yours.

The fact that these cows eat corn instead of what they should actually eat doesn’t help anybody’s case–what do you mean?. It also doesn’t help that these cows are packed into confined slaughterhouses by the hundreds, and are standing in their own shit for hours at a time, making it more than easy for this strand of E. Coli to spread from one cow to the next. The worst part about all of this is that the ground beef mass produced by McDonald’s to make that one hamburger can have almost a thousand cows in a single patty, making the disease even more unavoidable.”

8.)As stated earlier, I became much more concrete with my lede. Instead of speaking theoretically, I provided a concrete, relatable example that made sense.

9.)The conclusion was the most difficult for me.