For the last couple months I have spent a lot of time on the topic of race relations and social inequality. The events like the death of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are bringing to national attention the flaws in American society. No one should be begging and pleading to breath. This in my opinion has such a deep meaning. Eric Garner could literarily not breath and figuratively the people of America (of all races) cannot breath do to this injustice. It’s like a burden that people have to walk around with every day. Racism is literality like a “shackle” that can hold someone down with out cause or justification. So many people water post civil rights era racism down and are consciously or unconsciously content with it. My main question will always be how a state as New York as liberal as it claims to be, let this happen.
At this point I feel like I know the general point of the project; which in simple terms would be supporting your opinion. I feel as if I am going to mix and match several arguments together as to support for my opinions on the Mumia case. I also feel like I need to specify the issue I am addressing because the Mumia debate does not end at the trail but has larger implications. The two opposing view points are very radical. Mumia has extremely strong opinions and so do his opposers. I feel that in the end of the day I align myself with the supporters of Mumia, but not necessarily every statement he makes. He has very well thought out opinions which I respect and agree with the majority of the time. It appears that he gets the “Malcolm X” complex, where he is being perceived in a way that does not accurately depict him. That is the direction I want to take with this paper. Also am seeing a lot of ambiguity and sheer carelessness from law enforcement in respect to his personal trial. That raises the question of whether or not an innocent man is sitting in prison.
*Disclaimer : Although I am only 17 years old, I feel that with proper research and all that I have experienced though life thus far I feel (am hopeful) I will have enough credibility to make statements on such a complex issue. Also you can probably tell that I LOVE the word “I” and am not afraid to use it. However it has occurred to me that it should be used a little more sparingly in my writing.
The main claim that Fernandez is trying to make is that she could not convey her opinions and judgments on the Mumia case/ Adegbile DOJ Nominee case because Fox news had its own right wing agenda; and essentially they are using the innocent Mumia to ruin Adegbile’s campaign. She then goes on to talk about the reasons why she feels that Mumia is innocent. Her arguments include descriptions of police evidence tampering, problems in Mumia’s trial and the mysterious fourth person at the scene of the crime. Fernandez uses testimony from the officer assigned to watch Mumia, reporters at the scene, and interviews from Mumia’s family. With this evidence she wants to prove that Mumia Is innocent and that conservatives are using him to spread an anti-liberal message. This is through linking Mumia with Adegbile, who is a democrat, in hopes that he will not get the DOJ seat.
The main claim that Fernandez is trying to make is that she could not accurately convey her opinions and judgments on the Mumia case/ Adegbile DOJ Nominee case because Fox news had its own right wing agenda; and essentially they are using the innocent Mumia to ruin Adegbile’s campaign. She claims the news outlets motive for negatively connecting Adegbile to Mumia is “to associate that with Debo Adegbile so as to strategically energize a right-wing agenda against the gains of the civil rights movement (Fernandez).”She then goes on to talk about the reasons why she feels that Mumia is innocent. Her arguments include descriptions of police evidence tampering, problems in Mumia’s trial and the mysterious fourth person at the scene of the crime. Fernandez uses testimony from the officer assigned to watch Mumia, reporters at the scene, and interviews from Mumia’s family. With this evidence she wants to prove that Mumia Is innocent and that conservatives are using him to spread an anti-liberal message. This is through linking Mumia with Adegbile, who is a democrat, in hopes that he will not get the DOJ seat.
Fernandez, Johanna. “What Fox News and Hannity Blocked Me From Saying: Mumia as Fuel for Right-Wing Agenda?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11 Jan. 2014. Web.
I feel that you are asking us to do this assignment not only for practice, but also to see how closely the different ways of incorporating sources are actually intertwined. I all ready had my summary down, with a brief paraphrase toward the end, and my hopes are that the addition of the direct quotes pulls both together. I picked that particular one because it is from Fernandez, so it built credibility and also because it was so striking. I essentially felt that it shouldn’t be altered too much.
Intro exercise 2:
In the introduction to They Say I Say: The Moves That Matter Most in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein talk about templates that writewrs use to to coney their message. However this is not copying or plagiarizing beause the authors put in the individual ideas that they are specifically talking about. Basically they view there templates as effective ways to express the wuthors ideas, aand orgnanize their writing.
I happen to agree with the authors. With the types of templates offered the author can adequately mention opposing side of their topics, in hopes of expressing their own ideas better. Some might object, on the grounds of plagiarism however we should as Burke states, with in this template put our “oar” into the conversation. Overall I feel that creatively is not lost due to this process.
I feel that you main point is that you have to expose the other “side” to the topic you are talking about. There has to a reason for this person to even talk about the topic, like something to “react to”.
-“That is the they say, does not have to belong to others”- when talking about the author referring back to her daughter.
-“starting with a preposition many people agree with” 3
-“Conventional way of talking about a topic” – it has been so widely popular; quick and efficient
Question:” I am assuming that you pick which opening would be the most effective in your own personal speech.
When I think of revising my work, honestly its either completely changing the whole paper, or barely changing anything. I sometimes am a “single drafter” where I feel that the first draft is composed and with few edits and proof reading can be the final draft. Then as I thought about my writing more I realized that those first drafts are a bunch of mini revisions in one step, like I didn’t even create a first draft, as I was revising it as I was writing the draft itself. Well the most recent example was with the first draft of the Mumia case, I got mostly positive feedback, telling me to edit and proof read. However while I was writing the paper, I was changing the order of paragraphs, writing chunks of text and fitting them into sequence as the first draft was coming together. So I feel that I revise while writing, and want to look into revising after the first draft also. Just reflecting on that experience gave me a lot of insight. If we are talking about “layering “writing the first initial thoughts are he foundations, while the revisions are the next immediate step, where you change major ideas and structure. Editing is more for changing specific sentences, and minor changes in syntax. Lastly, proofreading is running spell check one last time, and making sure you use proper grammar and punctuation. In terms of responding to the piece, I am surprised to see that I fit into the “single drafters” and that her work is based off intensive thought on this topic. It does give clear and concise reasons on why revision is necessary. The second resistant ( revision is unnecessary if the first draft is good) she talks about specifically stood out to me as often many friends and I myself have shared this opinion. However now I have realized that revision is so important that I have been doing it all l\along. The third one also resonated with me, as I feel that I dint want to ruin a good thing by changing it. However I have realized that revision just for the sake of changing something, but true revision can only enhance a piece.
Right now with this assignment I understand what my task is, and have a general outline (or zero draft). What my main difficulty with this assignment , is the order in which I analyze the two separate drafts. Basically its if I should analysis the articles separately or together, and right now I am leaning toward together. I feel as if the contrast of the different view points will be more apparent if I analyze both together. I spent a lot of time picking out the articles, and I feel like I have chosen the articles which will effectively demonstrate he two sides to the Mumia issue. I have pin pointed which Aristotelian appeals that I will be implanting. Now I really just need to write the whole paper out, and add more detail in terms of examples in the text to highlight my points. That is essentially where I am at as of now.
For the second project, I’ve decided to choose two articles on Abu Jamal Mumia, a man convicted of murdering a cop decades ago; who some people few as a cold blooded killer while others call him a civil rights revolutionist. The reason I initially chose this topic was due to the completely different and drastic viewpoints in the case, when people take about this case its usually black and what, no room for grey areas. Which is funny because the center of the case is a heated racial conflict, because Mumia was black, while the officer who was shot was white. People say the trial forensics and investigation were sloppy, while others claim it there were too many coincidences in the case for Mumia to innocent. The main and most obvious constraint would therefore be race; and its role in 1980’s Philadelphia, which would also play into the Kairos. I also am interested in the choice of words used in the articles, and explore how differently two opposing viewpoints can describe the same man. For example, people opposed to Mumia want to strike fear into the audience, by talking about his Black Panther connections, claiming he is dangerous and violent. While his supporters, play on pathos, emotionally talking about the foundations of racism and social tension. Essentially what caught my attention in this case would be because it is so controversial, and the fact that it’s been an ongoing debate for over 30 years. Also as of yet I don’t have definite stance on this issue, however after evaluating both sides of the argument, I think I will better understand how to analyze information and formulate my own opinion. Which is a skill that is greatly needed for my life overall (however I understand that my person opinion will be left out for this project).
Recent Soda Ban Proposal in NYC :
Mumia Abu Jamal Articles:
Fashion Industry Fur Controversy