Annotated Bibliography

Le, C.N. "Where Affirmative Action Stands Today". 4 May 2009. The Society Pages. Web. 20 Mar 2012. Retrieved from http://thesocietypages.org/colorline/2009/05/04/where-affirmative-action-stands-today/

           This article takes a clear stance that "despite Barack Obama's election as President, affirmative action remains one of the most controversial and divisive issues in American society today." While some think this is a problem of the past, this article places affirmative action's emphasis on today's times and even goes as far by saying that this issue will not be resolved in (the author's) lifetime. Furthermore, Le references an article by MSNBC that notions how affirmative action is acted on too much in a case to case manner as opposed to having clearly defined laws. He goes on by reiterating that everyone is entitled to protection from racial discrimination, including whites. Finally, Le argues against the claim that Blacks and Latino's are paid significantly less than whites for the same job with the same educational background by stating that Whites are likely to have seniority because they have been in the workforce longer, therefore increasing their pay. When it comes down to it, racism is an ongoing problem in this country, but giving Blacks and Latino's admission into a school where they academically don't belong will only diminish their later success, both in school and in the workforce.


Pojman, Louis P. "The Case Against Affirmative Action." Web. 20 Mar 2012. Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/business_computer_ethics/the%20case%20against%20affirmative%20action.htm

          This essay written by Louis Pojman goes into great detail arguing against strong affirmative action. Pojman describes strong affirmative action as "preferential treatment, discriminating in favor of members of unrepresented groups, which have been treated unjustly in the past, against innocent people." He distinguishes this from weak affirmative action, which he claims "simply seeks to promote equal opportunity to the goods and offices of society." It is important to see the difference between the two in order to see that he, similar to myself, is not against equal opportunity and access to all things this great country has to offer. He uses the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument to get his point across that penalizing whites (and even Asians) does not make up for the hardship that African-Americans and Hispanics have suffered through in the past. In total, he compiles a list of nine arguments together that he utilizes to get his point across by addressing the counterarguments, and making new arguments out of them. Without a doubt, this wealth of information will be to my advantage when I make my stance against (strong) affirmative action.

Thesis Questions/Statements

Questions
1. What are the effects on children whose parents push them in sports?
2. Should college athletes be paid?
3. How has affirmative action increased racial animosity in our country?
4. Does working more actually reduce productivity?

Statements
1. Due to the extremely competitive nature in sports, overbearing parents that place extreme pressure on their kids to succeed will ultimately lead to broken relationship, between the kid and the sport, as well as the kid and the parent(s).

2. Due to the benefits college athletes already receive, it would be immature to think that they need a paycheck after every game.

3. Affirmative action has led to increased racial animosity in our country because the focus of college acceptance is no longer solely based on aptitude, but filling a quota. This not only does not make up for past racial discrimination, but brings forth new racial controversies, only furthering the problem.

4. As Americans, we have pushed the world to new levels of work, yet we are still well behind many European countries in terms of economic and scientific success. Conclusively, I believe working more not only reduces productivity in the workplace, but outside the workplace as well.

Pre-Write For Synthesis

         Power is the central argument in Kanye West's "Power", John Berger's "Ways of Seeing", and Michael Foucault's "Panopticism". In the music video power, West assumes the position of a Monarch or Pharaoh. His lyrics combined with the powerful images portray that he is at the ultimate position of power. He remains free from distractions, represented by tens of women surrounding him, in order to succeed. I still ponder as to why to men at the end of the video appear to try and kill Kanye, and whether they are successful. This may represent the mass majority's attempt to overtake Kanye as ruler, of the music world or in a more general sense. John Berger writes about the power of images, especially in artwork. He concludes that the invention of the camera has completely diminished the power and value of images because it mystifies the true meaning of what the artist was trying to portray by replication. He claims that the power now rests in the value of the piece, or its rarity. Finally, in "Panopticism", Michael Foucault describes the geometrically superior panopticon. It is a structure at the center of a room surrounded with windows in order to see any inmate at any particular time. The panopticon epitomizes power by controlling a maximum number of people with a minimum amount of people operating the panopticon. It was first meant to watch over criminals, but has now made its way into academics, factories, and hospitals in order to improve performance. Conclusively, I believe the underlying factor connecting all three stories of power is vision. The ability to see is something we all take for granted, but our eyes have shown us that Kanye West sits on a throne, that we can now google the  "Mona Lisa" and pull of thousands of printed replicas, and that we can control people in a panopticon by simply sitting there with our eyes open. Clearly, we can synthesize that seeing is not only believing, but powerful as well.

Summary of Foucault's "Panopticism"

        Michel Foucault gives his opinion on power and discipline in "Panopticism". He begins by explaining what measures were taken to control the plague, such as quarantine and forced separation. These forms of discipline used during the plagues have been the basis for much of the discipline that was evident during that time. From there, Foucault describes Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon", a tower in the center of a room which has vision to every cell, generalized for prisoners. The ultimate discipline mechanism, the panopticon is simply a device to make discipline more economic and proficient.  It's selling point is that all the prisoners can be seen without ever seeing. Furthermore, the panopticon epitomizes power and control because it minimizes the persons needed to operate and maximizes the persons that it watches over. Since a prisoner never knows when he/she is being watched, anybody has the power to operate the panopticon. Because of this, there can be no tyranny where the power is held (and abused) by one person. The panopticon does not limit itself to prison cells, however. It can maximize potential in a hospital, school, factory or wherever else discipline plays a role. In a sense, if society had a panopticon, the world would be much more productive at the hands of power and discipline. Nearly opposite the tactics used to control the plague, the style incorporated by the panopticon uses the power of seeing to gain control. The panopticon is power by geometry, and Foucault goes into great detail about how the panopticon represents discipline and power in society as a whole.

My Response to Madsen's Article

           While reading Kyle Madsen's response to my paper "Why Bother?", I came across some arguments against my article that I found to be rather ignorant. Madsen claimed that my argument "loses impact by not discussing more realistic alternatives such as pursuing smart consumerism and better environmental education for children."   While Madsen is entitled to his own opinion, I feel as though I did convey an ample amount of solutions that don't require the labor of growing your own food. In paragraph 18 I state "Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or even illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrageous to human conscious." Here, I propose that doing any of these anti-green activities may one day be frowned upon by society. Indirectly, I am advocating the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, a diet consuming of something other than meat, and a bit of thought when it comes to lighting your home. Obviously, not everybody can plant a garden, but I see it as "realistic" to consider fuel economy when purchasing your next car, eating a bit more fruits and vegetables, and turning your lights off when nobody is using them.
         
          Aside from not mentioning "realistic alternatives", Madsen claims that my "angle of vision may be too intense for some readers." Also, he states that I assume my "New York Times readers already share (my) agreement with most of the serious views of climate change held by many scientists and environmentalists." Although I have a specific point I would like to get across, I do not believe my angle of vision is so acute that it only includes such professionals. I do assume the readers of the New York Times are intelligent enough to understand the references I make and facts I give, but I am not saying they have to agree with my viewpoints regarding the causes of global warming. My goal was not to persuade, but to inform, and by me using the planting of a garden as my primary example throughout the text, I was simply trying to say that one person, despite the task, can make a difference.

Quote from Geertz's "Deep Play"

"It is, in fact, in shallow games, ones in which smaller amounts of money are involved, that increments and decrements of cash are more nearly synonyms for utility and disutility, in the ordinary, unexpanded sense--for pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness. In deep ones, where the amounts of money are great, much more is at stake than material gain: namely, esteem, honor, dignity, respect--in a word, though in Bali a profoundly freighted word, status. It is at stake symbolically, for (a few cases of ruined addict gamblers aside) no one's status is actually altered by the outcome of a cockfight; it is only, and that momentarily, affirmed or insulted."

Page 71-72

I found this quote utterly important in the sense that Geertz dismays the importance of money and upholds the argument of status in the Bali community. He argues that the betting is slightly relevant in shallow games (in terms of money) because the betters have more to lose. In larger games however, it is status that is perceived to be won and lost. Conclusively, I chose this quote because Geertz speaks volumes about the insignificance of money and the perceived importance of status during cockfights.

OWS Summary

In the article "Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street Will Do Next; Ask How We Will Change The Status Quo", the author explains how the lack of publicity Occupy Wall Street is receiving now may indicate that the impact of the movement is dying down. The author uses unique analogies to compare OWS to a reality television show and even a brand name, but the fact of the matter is that as long as OWS and Wall Street are coinciding, the effectiveness of OWS is questionable.

The analogies that the author uses speak volumes when it comes to OWS's attention and effectiveness. First, Fitzgerald compares OWS to a character in a reality TV series, where "Americans cannot wait for the next episode." OWS has been depicted as the good guys, the protagonist, the "99%", while the "1%" is the elite, the villain. Known by a collection of images and phrases, much like today's MTV hit "Jersey Shore", OWS has slowed down and has the American public on the edge of their seats for season two. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the point of reification. Reification is the process by which something abstract and malleable turns into something concrete and not up for debate. The author feels that this is what is happening to the OWS movement. Much like brand names such as Nike and Starbucks, OWS is what it is. Whether people disagree with it, love it, or hate it, OWS has become a fixture that isn't questioned; it simply is. Fitzgerald feels that if the OWS movement wants to regain its influence, it must resist reification. People need to think of OWS "not as an organization but as a claim: that private interest is a public problem."

Conclusively, Fitzgerald notices the OWS movement slowing down and relays his advice for it to regain power and reach its full potential. For progress to continue being made, Wall Street and OWS cannot co-exist, as they are doing so now. When the focus shifts from "them" and "it" to "us", OWS will no longer have a brand name attached to it which will lead to the "99%" breaking the status quo once again.

"Strong Reading" and "Reading With/Against the Grain"

Strong Reading

As defined in "Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers", "strong reading" occurs when a reader cooperatively reads, thinks, and writes about a topic. This happens when the reader takes what is given in the writing, but also infers and relates the material to his/her own life. This form of reading is encouraged because it allows the reader to grasp the material and makes it easy to comprehend questions, as presented on a formal test. This is one of the reasons that students form different conclusions when asked the same question. One student, who was adopted after jumping around foster cares, may have a different view on the nature/nurture debate than the generic child that was born into a wealthy family. I believe our family and experience define us as individuals, and "strong reading" helps bring out the variety of inferences that stem from the same reading.

Reading With/Against the Grain

Strong readers have the ability to read both into the grain and against the grain. When reading into the grain, the reader puts himself in the authors shoes to fully embody the points the author is trying to make. Psychologist Carl Rogers called this "empathetic listening", where the reader takes the stance of the author and thinks as though he agrees with what the author is saying. Some examples where I have read with the grain include on formal tests, such as the SAT, and song lyrics. For comprehension exams, such as the reading portion of the the SAT or ACT, I believe it is imperative to analyze the piece for the message that the author is trying to convey. This allows you build on what the author is saying and easily answer questions based on the context. Secondly, I read song lyrics into the grain because it allows me to listen to what the singer/songwriter is trying to get across. Once I can understand where the artist is coming from, it is easier for me to relate and even build upon the lyrical message in the song.

Reading against the grain is a whole other way to approach things. This form of reading is more analytic in the sense that you question and sometimes even dispute the points that the author is trying to get across. You may feel that everything the author says you have a rebuttal for, and although he/she may be knowledgeable in the subject, you get the sense they are missing some key components or even ignorant to refuting information. One minor instance where I recall reading against the grain was when I read an article saying that in order to conserve water on golf courses in this new "green" era, course conditions will inevitably suffer. Immediately I could tell that the author was an environmentalist and since I am an avid golfer where the condition of the course is of utter importance, I immediately forced judgement onto the article. It seemed every argument that the author made, whether it be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or preserve wildlife, I had a counterexample. She seemed to be leaving out easier solutions such as environmentally friendly fertilizer or advanced drainage systems that use less water to keep the course in pristine condition. I knew I had strong feelings about the subject, but little did I know I was reading "against the grain".