For Tuesday: Finish the Book!

Remember to finish The Men Who Stare at Goats for Tuesday's class. No more questions to answer, but we will have an in-class response when you arrive based on the final chapters.

Be sure to read the Conversation Paper #3 response below, since that is effectively your Final Exam. We'll talk about this again on Tuesday. 

See you then! 

Conversation Paper #3: Staring at Goats (and other test subjects)

“Jamal paused for a moment and then he said, “You don’t know how deep the rabbit hole goes, do you? But you know it is deep. You know it is deep”” (Ronson 169).

For your final Conversation Paper, and your Final Exam paper, I want you to have a conversation based on one of the main ‘theories’ of the book, The Men Who Stare at Goats. It’s hard to know what’s real and what isn’t in this book, though the “Acknowledgments and Bibliography” in the final pages show how hard he tried to verify his story. So I want you to do the same with this paper—do a little more research one of the ideas, stories, incidents, or people in this book. Don’t try to discuss the entire book, but take one small aspect of it: say, the idea that sound influences behavior, or that world leaders often rely on astrologers, etc.

The goal of this paper is to find something (a) you are interested in discussing, and to (b) explain why you think it’s important by using our book, and then (c) bring in other sources to help expand the conversation—to show us that other people think it’s important, too! Some topics you might consider are:

• Psychic research in the army and/or society
• Astrology and world leaders
• The future of warfare in the post-nuclear age
• How military technology influences civilian life
• How science fiction influences military life
• The psychology of conspiracy theories (why do people believe them?)
• The ethics of interrogation (what is right/wrong?)
• The ethics of human/animal research (MK-ULTRA, etc.)
• The psychology of sound

REMEMBER that you’re writing for people who have not read the book and do not know the conversation. So you have to introduce the book and the conversation to them, and explain why you think it’s important. Use The Men Who Stare at Goats as your main source: quote from it to establish how the conversation impacts our daily lives and what Ronson wanted us to know about it. Then find other sources that contribute to this conversation. Consider naysayers, people who might refute Ronson or not believe this is a serious or credible issue. YOU can be a naysayer, too, and argue against Ronson or any of the people in the book.

REQUIREMENTS

• At least 4 pages, double spaced
• Quote and respond to Ronson’s book in your discussion
• Introduce and discuss at least 2 additional sources
• Follow proper MLA citation guidelines (or other, if you prefer); just be consistent
• DUE by 5pm on our Final Exam Date December 7^th

For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 10-13

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Many in the Army deny the use of subliminal sound techniques in warfare, claiming that it makes no sense, and could not be used without injuring our soldiers in the process. Ronson admits that it sounds pretty much like a crazy conspiracy theory. Does he completely debunk it in these chapters? Or does he suggest like many conspiracy theories, it stems from a grain of truth?

Q2: A soldier who worked at Abu Ghraib tells Ronson, “The thing I had to remember about military intelligence was that they were the “nerdy-type guys at schools. You know. The outcasts. Couple all that with ego, and a poster on the wall saying BY CG APPROVAL...and suddenly you have guys who think they govern the world” (176). Why is this an important point for Ronson to remember? What danger might a prison run by the “outcasts” prove both to the prisoners and the soldiers who run it?

Q3: One of the reasons that Ronson has difficultly understand the governing philosophy of places like Abu Ghraib, and the Branch Davidian siege, is due to what he calls a “casserole of intelligence.” What does he mean by this, and why does this give even more plausibility to the use of frequencies and other sound technology?

Q4: Jamal, the prisoner who was eventually released from Guantanamo Bay, says about the prison, “You don’t know how deep the rabbit hole goes, do you? But you know it is deep. You know it is deep” (169). While he and others make these chapters sound like a vast, cosmic conspiracy, what makes it difficult to trust his (and others’) accounts of torture and sonic warfare? What makes Jamal, Dr. Oliver Lowery, and Colonel Alexander so difficult to take at face value?

Short Paper #3: Irony and Satire

“Do you happen to know whether or not Michael was ever involved in attempting to influence livestock from afar?” (Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats) 

For your third—and last!—short paper assignment, I want you to write a movie review of one of your college classes. This is ironic since a class is the opposite of a film—something that instructs rather than entertains. And yet, it has many of the elements of a film: plot, characters, a director, lightning, a setting, and even numerous sequels! The point of this assignment is to be humorous and to see one thing in terms of another; if your class was a film, what kind of film would it be? Romance? Action-adventure? Horror? Documentary? How good is the director? Who are the main actors? Is one part of the film more exciting than others? Would you see it again—and recommend it to others? The trick in this paper is your tone. Write it like an actual movie review, and don’t be afraid to poke a little fun at your subject. Does the professor ramble too much? Does one classmate answer too many questions? Is there technical problems with the projector or Blackboard? Does the class go over time repeatedly? Etc…

THINGS TO CONSIDER IN YOUR REVIEW

• THE GENRE: Think about the conventions of this genre and try to show how your class follows the same conventions (ex: horror movies always get really quiet before a big scare, or a romantic comedy has two people who hate each other fall in love, etc.)
• THE PLOT: What story does your class tell? Is it easy to follow? Confusing? Who would like it?
• THE ACTORS: How good are the actors in your class? Do they play the role of students, teacher, etc. well—or could some of them use acting lessons?
• DIRECTION/PACE: How well does the class seem to function/move? Is 75 minutes too long? 50 too short? Does the teacher keep things moving—or end too late?
• THE SCRIPT: Does the class seem to follow the script—or always get off it? Are people improvising their lines? Is it well-written (or does it need re-writes)?
• THE SETTING: The classroom, the building, ECU...do these enhance the film? Or detract from the story?

Have fun with this assignment just like Ronson has fun with his book. Don’t be nasty, but do use satire to poke fun at the things everyone says/feels about this class. Instead of saying “the class is too long” or “I don’t understand the professor,” use the irony of a movie review to make this points for your audience. In other words, say it without directly saying it. That’s what makes it funny!

Should be at least 2-3 pages, though you can always do more.

DUE NEXT THURSDAY, November 9^th by 5pm [no class that day]

For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 7-9

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does Ronson suggest that NBC’s Today show and its anchors (Ann Curry, Katie Couric, etc.) completely missed the point when they reported on the Barney the Dinosaur story? Why in this case is something that sounds satirical not quite as funny as it first appears?

Q2: The PsyOps specialists explain the point of the leaflets (and other materials) they drop on the Iraqi army to Ronson: “Our most effective products are the ones which link an unfulfilled need on their part with a desired behavior on our part” (131). What does he mean by this, and how might this relate to the “cunning” Jim Channon tried to pioneer years before?

Q3: What is the “Bucha Effect” and how does it relate to the First Earth Battalion’s techniques? Do you think Jim Channon (and others) would approve of how Pete Brusso, Sid Heal, and others are implementing this technique in modern warfare?

Q4: Lynndie England, one of the soldiers implicated in the Abu Ghraib scandal, suggested that most of these events were orchestrated by PsyOps as a piece of military “theatre.” What do you think she meant by this? How can war be a performance in the same way as Shakespeare or a movie? 

For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 4-6

NOTE: Try to read the next three chapters, which is longer than what we read last time, but it reads very quickly. If you don’t quite get to the end, no worries. Just make sure to read enough to answer the questions below.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Are we supposed to believe the stories of the various people Ronson encounters on his quest, such as Savelli, etc.? Does Ronson present them as essentially trustworthy, if extremely eccentric? Or are these people simply so desperate for the spotlight that they’ll spin any story to attract journalists like himself? A passage or moment that convinces you one way or another?

Q2: When General Stubblebine ‘destroys’ a cloud with his mind, he quickly concludes that it may or may not have been him. “Hard to tell,” he said, “who was doing what to whom” (72). Is that the basic story of this entire novel—things that could be read one way, but could also be read another? Is anything that Ronson discovers so far verifiable or irrefutable proof? Or is the nature of secret intelligence to make sure no one sees the ‘truth’?

Q3: In Chapter 5, Ronson writes that “For everyday agnostics, it is not easy to accept the idea that our leaders, and the leaders of our enemies, sometimes seem to believe that the business of managing world affairs should be carried out with both standard and supernatural dimensions” (81). Yet a majority of Americans (particularly in Oklahoma) continue to appeal to faith and the divine to guide their actions, even on relatively routine matters. Is it wrong of the government to turn to faith and/or supernatural powers when the stakes get high? Do you think the government should stick to proven science and traditional protocols? (related to this, what do you think Ronson believes?)

Q4: Courtney Brown convinced thousands of listeners that Martians would soon be arriving on Earth, and that, with a little effort, “our time of ignorance, our time of darkness, is coming to a close. We are entering a time of greatness” (108). Why do you think people are so easily fooled by such people? Is it merely their charisma and ability to speak convincingly? Or is it the message itself? Does it speak to our deepest desires and fears?

For Tuesday: Ronson, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chs. 1-3

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What was Channon’s idea for a First Earth Battalion such a radical concept? Where did he get his inspiration? And related to this, why might the armed forces have been receptive to such an “out there” suggestion?

Q2: Do you get the impression that Ronson believes half the stories that people tell him about the Goat Lab and the Staring exercises? What is his tone throughout the piece, and why do you think he decided to write a book about these interviews and experiences?

Q3: Channon says something interesting in Chapter 3 about the average soldier: “The kind of person attracted to military service has a great difficulty...being cunning. We suffered in Vietnam from not being cunning...You might get some cunning out of other agencies in the American government, but you’d have a hard time finding it in the army” (31). According to him and others in this book, why might the conversation about war be more about cunning than fighting? Why does Channon believe that “cunning” is the future of the American army?

Q4: Ronson poses four possible scenarios in Chapter 2 for the stories about the Goat Lab, the last one being, “The U.S. Intelligence community was, back then, essentially nuts through and through” (10). While he’s obviously being facetious here, what might he be actually driving at? Why might the various bodies of U.S. Intelligence be more “nuts” than we assume? And why might it be in their best interests to be at least a little more “nuts” than the average person?

Argument Paper #2: The Truth We Never Tell

“We don’t tell each other the truth about dying, as a people. Not real dying. Real dying, regular and mundane dying, is so hard and so ugly that it becomes the worst thing of all...No one ever told me the truth about it, not once” (Teague 278).

PROMPT: For your Second Argument Paper, I want you to enter into a discussion about something no one ever “told you the truth about” in your own life. It should be something important to you and your identity: school, your job, your future career, your personal identity, your relationships, your faith, your family, etc. In other words, something you had to experience and learn by trial and error, even though someone could have told you the “truth” and saved you a lot of heartache. Assume that your readers don’t understand your identity or experience...explain it to them in detail and use other sources to help compare your experience to theirs. Make sure we understand that this is a conversation that many people have, even though our society might not be having it correctly or honestly.

NAYSAYER: For this paper, I also want you to add a “naysayer” into the work. This is someone who disagrees or shows another side to your discussion, and in this case, is the person who might not tell the truth about your experience. What do other people say about this identity or experience? What did people tell you which turned out to be slightly untrue or an outright lie? Why did they do this? Make sure we see the other side of the conversation so we understand where you’re coming from—and why you want us to see a different “truth.”

FOR EXAMPLE: The Truth/Lies of Teaching... “When I was first becoming a teacher, no one told me that the work never ends. As a student, you have a lot of work, but you eventually finish it (eventually!). As a teacher, however, you always have something to do, you are always grading, planning, reading, learning, writing, attending meetings, and then doing it all over again. You always have homework, and you’re never doing enough of it. So when people say “teachers are lazy, they get three months off,” etc., they don’t see the ‘truth’ that goes on behind the scenes, when teachers are up at one in the morning trying to plan an eight o’clock class.”

REQUIREMENTS:

• At least 3-4 sources, which can be any of the essays in the book (esp. the ones by Armstrong/Miller and Teague) and/or outside sources that inform your conversation.
• Remember that you can use an essay about rape and not write about rape—the ideas in the essay could help you discuss/express your own.
• At least 4-5 pages double spaced, though you can do more
• You must have a conversation: quote and respond to the articles, and introduce a Naysayer into your paper
• DUE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26th BY 5pm

For Tuesday: Teague, “The Friend” (277-295)

NOTE: Trigger Warnings—this is a rough essay about death and cancer. I think it’s an important essay to read, and very powerful, but it’s also very sad and even disturbing in parts, particularly if you’ve gone through this yourself. So just a warning of what to expect. Read it in small doses if you find it too personal or disturbing.

A link to the essay with pictures: http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/a34905/matthew-teague-wife-cancer-essay/

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: At one point in the essay, Teague writes that “She drifted away on Haldol, an ocean measured in milliliters” (292). This essay uses metaphors often, as a way of trying to help us relate to the unfathomable and unimaginable. Discuss another metaphor in the essay that is particularly helpful in imagining the events or ideas the author is trying to explain. What does it help you ‘see,’ and why do you feel it’s appropriate?

Q2: Talking to a counselor, Matthew is told “Before this is over…you will long for it to end.” His response is, “Never” (282). But what did the counselor know that he didn’t? What couldn’t he know then that he learns in the course of the essay (though he never actually wants her to die, of course).

Q3: This essay isn’t called “The Wife” or “The Husband,” but “The Friend.” Why does he focus more on Dane than himself or his wife? Why is his role perhaps the most important part of the story, and the one he wants to help us appreciate and understand?

Q4: Unlike many stories of death and loss, this essay documents the aspect that doesn’t make it into TV movies or movies in general: the anger and vindictiveness of the wife against the husband. Why do you think he includes this in his essay? Is he getting revenge on his wife for all the suffering she put him through? Is it insensitive? Or is there another reason we need to see this?

Conferences for This Week

Below are the conference times in case you forget--all take place in my office, HM 348. Please e-mail me if you need to change.

MONDAY
12:30 Chassidy
:40 Jessica
:50 Kassandra

1:00 Penny / Sam 
:10 Reece
:20 Coleman
:30 Riley

2:00 Elisha
:20 Eddie

TUESDAY
9:30 Noah
:40 Jakob
:50 Lauren

10:00 Sarah
:10 Jesilee
:20 Kendra
:30 Tyler D
:40 Leonson

11:00 Jordan
:10 Mitchell
:30 Halie

1:00 Jasmine
:10 Madison
:20 Rhiannon
:30 Kelsey
:40 Ashley
:50 Emily

2:00 Hannah
:10 Madison
:40 Sebastian

3:30 Daniel
:40 Ashton

WEDNESDAY

12:30 Riley (re-schedule)  12:30 Nathan
:40 Gabe
:50 Kayla

2:10 Cliff

1-2:30 OPEN

FRIDAY
1:00 Ashlynd

1-2:40 OPEN 

Short Paper #2: A Closer Look

“For truth, properly considered, is about the relationship between language and the world, not about photographs and the world.” (Errol Morris)

For your second short paper, I want you to choose a photograph, painting, or significant work of art that has no words. It should be an image that is complex enough to be read or interpreted in a number of ways, and might even be confusing on first glance. In your paper, I want you to describe the image as if the reader has never seen it. This means you have to describe the image in as much detail as possible, and make sure we can see all the important aspects of the work as if it was sitting right before us. Be descriptive, and help us see what you see when you look at it. Again, don’t assume we can see it, so if you find yourself saying “the guy here looks weird,” tell us why he looks weird.

However, here’s the trick: as you describe the photograph, painting, etc., I want you to analyze and explain it. For example, if you were describing the photograph “Sharbat Gula,” try to make us see the girl you see—either a refugee, or a victim, or an assassin. Use details in the painting to illustrate why you see her this way and make us see it, too. Imagine that you’re a tour guide taking us on a tour of this work, and say “if you look here, you can see why she’s full of despair and turmoil,” etc. Use your descriptions to interpret her character, background, or personality for the reader. Help us see the “inside” of the photograph/painting, that isn’t actually observable—but that you see based on the clues and inferences of the work.

EXAMPLE: Remember how Armstrong and Miller help us see Marie through their descriptions: “To Marie, it seemed the questioning had lasted for hours. She did what she always did when under stress. She flipped the switch, as she called it, suppressing all the feelings she didn’t know what to do with. Before she confessed to making up the story, she couldn’t look the two detectives, the two men, in the eye. Afterward, she could. Afterward, she smiled” (226).  If we were looking at Marie as a photograph, we would only see her smiling and looking calm, and would think, “gee, she doesn’t seem too upset by all of this.” But the writers show us why she doesn’t, and how she copes so that changes the way we see her, too. So help us see who she is on the inside, even though we can’t prove this—it’s just a gut feeling based on how you read and interpret the work.

REQUIREMENTS

• 2-3 pages, double spaced
• Description and attention to detail: help us see the work without having to see it
• Analysis: make sure you help us see the ‘inside’ of the work, which isn’t based on observable fact (we can’t prove it), but is based on how you interpret the clues and inferences in the painting
• DUE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5^th by 5pm

For Tuesday: Armstrong & Miller, “An Unbelievable Case of Rape” (p.203-240)

Detective Galbraith and Sgt. Hendershot from the article (see more pictures in the link below)

Link to the on-line article (with photos): https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: According to the article, what made it so difficult (and take so long) to catch O’Leary? What “break” did they eventually catch, and how common do you think it is to catch such breaks in similar crimes?

Q2: The authors write that “Investigators…should not assume that a true victim will be hysterical rather than calm, able to show clear signs of physical injury, and certain of every detail. Some victims confuse fine points of ever recant. Nor should police get lost in stereotypes” (216). Based on the article, why did Marie act so unconventionally and often recant or alter her original statement? In other words, why did she “look guilty” even though she was completely innocent?

Q3: According to FBI estimates, only “5 percent of rape cases [are] unfounded or baseless”(220). However, from 2008 to 2012, the Lynnwood police department “determined that ten of forty-seven rapes reported to Lynnwood police were unfounded—21.3 percent. That’s five times the national average of 4.3 percent for agencies covering similar-sized populations during that same period” (239). What do you think accounts for this? Was it lack of resources? Misinformation or ignorance about race? Or stereotypes about teenagers or women victims?

Q4: Why do the authors take the unusual approach of switching the point of view on page 233 to O’Leary’s perspective? Since this is fiction, based on what they assume he thought (and what he told police) why include it in a piece of journalism? How does this affect the story and your own emotional response to it? What do you think they wanted it to do to the reader? 

Conversation Paper Resources

Responding to the Conversation: Using Quotes

“But the gap between what we know and what we should do about it is getting bigger and bigger, and the action really needs to turn to responding. Otherwise, we’re going to be hammered. I’ve been through one of these massive earthquakes in the most seismically prepared nation on earth. If that was Portland”—Goldfinger finished the sentence with a shake of his head before he finished it with the words. “Let’s just say I would rather not be here” (Schulz 193).

The Quotation Sandwich: Introduction + Quotation + Response

In her essay about the next “big one” in the Pacific Northwest, Schulz writes, “But the gap between what we know and what we should do about it is getting bigger and bigger, and the action really needs to turn to responding. Otherwise, we’re going to be hammered” (193).

OR—

In the essay, “The Really Big One,” the author explains that,

            the gap between what we know and what we should do about it is getting bigger and                 bigger, and the action really needs to turn to responding. Otherwise, we’re going to be             hammered. I’ve been through one of these massive earthquakes in the most                               seismically prepared nation on earth. If that was Portland”—Goldfinger finished the                 sentence with a     shake of his head before he finished it with the words. “Let’s just                   say I would rather not be here. (Schulz 193)

 Then, Respond…

In other words, we can no longer pretend it will happen “one day” and slowly decide what to do when it comes. We have to assume that it will happen, far sooner than later, and look at how other countries, such as Japan, prepare for such events. The more we learn, the more we realize how unprepared we truly are, and that’s the most important conversation we can have in this country.

CITING A FILM: If you decide to use Command and Control in your paper, obviously you can't quote it (unless you took really good notes). Instead, be sure to introduce it as usual and discuss specific aspects or ideas from the film. You don't need to cite it with a page number, etc., but do cite the film after summarizing/discussing it and include it in your Works Cited page. For example...

In the film Command and Control, we learn that during the first hydrogen bomb test, there was a legitimate fear that the resulting explosion would set fire to the Earth's atmosphere and kill everything on the planet. Yet they decided it was worth the risk and performed the test (Kenner).

The Works Cited Page

Schulz, Kathryn. “The Really Big One.” The 2016 Best American Magazine Writing. ed. Sid

            Holt. New York: Columbia University Press, 2016.

OR from the website:

Schulz, Kathyrn. “The Really Big One.” The New Yorker On-Line. 20 July 2015.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one

To cite a film:

Command and Control. Dir. Robert Kenner. American Experience Films, 2016. 

NOTE: For General Citation Information, visit the Purdue OWL (On-line Writing Lab) at this address: www.owl.english.purdue.edu

Conversation Paper #1: Taking a Seat at the Table

[NOTE: The questions and reading for Tuesday are in the post below this one...] 

Writing a paper is all about choosing what conversation to have with your readers. So far in class, we’ve discussed three essays (with two more to come) that each introduce an important conversation to the public. Yet even though each one is on a different topic—earthquakes, ebola, and immigration—they all have a number of similarities. The closer we read these essays, the more we realize that they actually share many of the same issues and dilemmas. A good writer quickly realizes that any discussion takes place at more than one table, so you have to decide which table is most important for your readers to take a seat at, at least to get started.

For this paper, I want you to choose 2 of the 5 essays below to introduce a specific conversation that both share, and that are important for your readers to see, understand, and take part in:

• Schultz, “The Really Big One”
• Hammet, “My Nurses Are Dead”
• Garrison, etc. “The New American Slavery” 
• Garrison, etc. "All You Americans are Fired

When picking your conversation, it can be anything that unites the two essays into a specific and focused discussion. It doesn’t have to be literal (earthquakes, for example), but should be about a bigger issue that each one shines a light on. For example, you could write a paper about “why we don’t prepare for disasters” which uses Schultz and Hammet’s essays; or, you could discuss “justice in America” using both of Garrison's essays, etc. Anything works, so long as you can use each essay to help introduce the conversation and develop it in ways that tell your reader why it matters.

IN ADDITION, you need at least one outside source to add to this conversation. Invite someone else to the table. It could be another article about the Cascadia subduction zone, or a website about rape statistics, etc. But it should be a relevant article that adds to the conversation and helps us explore it. (We’ll talk about finding sources in class on Tuesday)

SOME TIPS TO STRUCTURE THIS PAPER

• Must introduce a “late” reader to the conversation: what do they need to know to start discussing it themselves?
• Must introduce and quote from the articles to add “voices” to your paper: don’t be the only voice in your paper—have a dialogue with your sources.
• Start “in the middle” to show people why this conversation matters.
• Respond to specific ideas so you can say, “I think this is important because...” or “I have a problem with this idea because...”
• When it matters, use metaphors: a well-placed metaphor can make an abstract topic concrete for your readers.

Conversation Paper #1 is due in 2 weeks: Thursday, September 21st by 5pm

For Tuesday: Garrison, etc. “All You Americans Are Fired” (pp.89-109)

 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: According to this essay, “The H-2 program often pits one vulnerable group against another” (108). Why does this dynamic occur from a program that is designed to help the American economy on one hand, and give foreign workers a chance to work legally in America for a profit? How does it become a potentially racist enterprise?

Q2: Nicole Burt, an experienced stable attendant, was repeatedly denied work in her field because she was a US citizen. As she responded, “I felt betrayed. I just felt like American had let Americans down” (100). Do you think companies have a legal or moral imperative to hire Americans over foreign workers? If a company thinks they can gain an advantage in hiring H-2 workers, shouldn’t they have the right to do so? Should being American really color the issue at all?

Q3: The real conversation, one employer insists, is that Americans have become too weak and lazy to compete in the world. As he says,  “Without legal guest workers or “illegal people” to work the fields, Americans are either going to have to buy all our food from another country, or we’re going to have to all starve to death” (108). Have we become too reliant on foreign workers, to the point that Americans have forgotten how to do an honest day’s work? Or is this a convenient excuse by employers who simply don’t want to pay Americans a living wage when they can exploit a helpless visa worker?

Q4: All of our essays seem to be about problems that are recognized as problems; everyone knows about it, but no one fixes them. The same is true here, since Lawyers at Legal Aid of North Carolina have repeatedly contacted the State Department to no avail. Nothing seems to change. Why do you think this is? Why wouldn’t the government have a vested interest to protect an American’s right to work? If we can’t protect Americans, what are we protecting?

For Tuesday: Garrison, etc. “The New American Slavery” (pp.63-89)

 

NOTE: If you don't have the book for whatever reason, here is a link to the article: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicagarrison/the-new-american-slavery-invited-to-the-us-foreign-workers-f?utm_term=.eo6zno7J#.mjEN8dEp

NO Definitions this time--though I might ask you about a few words in class, so read actively! :) 

QUESTIONS: answer 2 of the following

Q1: The article claims that in 2014, the Labor Department “found violations in 82 percent of the H-2 visa cases it investigated” (69). Additionally, the Mexican government has actively been trying to save its citizens from abuse, and “has repeatedly appealed to the United States to do more to protect guest workers” (82). If so many documented abuses are on record, why hasn’t anything changed? What seems to be the biggest stumbling block to reducing the number of H-2 violations?

Q2: One investigator found working conditions which included sleeping “four to a room in a filthy roadside motel, cooking on hot plates on the floor and unable to drink the tap water because the plumbing was defective and actually issued electric shocks” (88). If the working conditions are so deplorable, why do workers from Mexico, India, and elsewhere keep coming? Wouldn’t word of mouth eventually warn them to stay away?

Q3: Many of the claims of workers vs. employers devolve into a kind of ‘he said-she said’ argument, with the employers contradicting their employees’ complaints (or vice versa, if you side with the employers). When confronted with the employee’s complaints of draining water from crabs (to make them weight less), the employer countered, “they didn’t tell you that they patted their hand in the water bowl and dropped the water on the meat, did they?”” (81). From the article itself, is there any way to tell who to believe? Are both sides exaggerating? Or is it truly a one-sided abuse? What do the authors seem to believe?

Q4: This article involves a number of “conversations” that that are prevalent in our society right now. Immigration/migrant workers is one of them, but only one: what is another big conversation this essay introduces to the reader? How does this article help us understand why this conversation is so important to 21^st century Americans—and how much more needs to be said about it? 

Short Paper #1: Writing for the Blind

INTRO: For this short assignment, I want you to get practice thinking of the ‘real world’ in metaphorical terms. Since the goal of writing is to communicate ideas and experiences, metaphors help your readers see and feel what you do. If you want to help readers see why a conversation matters, a metaphor can make it both personal and tangible, especially if they have no experience with the idea or topic. For example, when Schulz writes, “Refrigerators will walk out of kitchens, unplugging themselves and toppling over,” she want you to see how supernatural an earthquake feels; appliances will literally walk out of a room, as if possessed by demonic spirits. She could have said “everything got tossed around,” but that isn’t as visceral as saying that they “walked out of kitchens” and “unplugged themselves.” Here, they come alive.

THE PROMPT: I want you to describe some activity, event, or experience in your life in terms of a controlling metaphor. The title of your paper should spell this out for us. Then, every sentence in your paper should help us see and feel this experience by developing the basic metaphor. As you write, ask yourself: how can I describe one experience in terms of another? Try to use your metaphor to ‘translate’ this experience for someone who has never done it, or doesn’t understand how you do it.

EXAMPLE: My topic would be, “Writing is driving in the dark.” I could then explain, “When you first start writing, it’s like driving down the road without lights—you can’t see a thing. But gradually, you get an idea and the lights come on. You can’t see too far up the road, just a few feet, but it’s enough to follow the road and make it to the next paragraph. The more you write, the more your eyes get adjusted to the darkness and more and more details pop out. Eventually, you start to recognize the landscape and know exactly where you are: you’re no longer writing in the dark, since you can see everything in the light. Then you can enjoy the drive.”

REQUIREMENTS

• 1-2 pages double spaced (but must be a full page, not just a paragraph)
• Must be typed, since this is a slightly more formal assignment
• Title the paper with your controlling metaphor (“College is a fun-house mirror,” etc.)
• Describe an experience through a controlling metaphor; consider how every sentence can use some aspect of the metaphor to help us ‘see’ your experience
• DUE IN ONE WEEK: Thursday, August 31^st by 5pm [no class that day]

For Tuesday: Hammer, “My Nurses are Dead, and I Don’t Know if I’m Already Infected” (pp.127-152)

NOTE: if you don’t have the book yet, here’s a link to the article on-line: https://medium.com/matter/did-sierra-leones-hero-doctor-have-to-die-1c1de004941e

PART I: Definitions (define the following with a brief definition—enough to understand the passage in question): Imminent (127); meticulously (129); perilous (132); hemorrhagic (136); acquiesced (143); trepidation (144); paternalistic (150)

PART II: Questions (answer 2 of the 4 questions in sufficient detail to show that you’ve read the essay and understand that there is more than one easy answer)

Q1: In the aftermath of Khan’s death, friends say that Doctors Without Borders “was being very paternalistic” and that his death was ultimately “about color” (150). Why did Doctors Without Borders make the decision they did, and is there any evidence that race played a role in his death or treatment?

Q2: When the outbreak starts raging throughout the country, at least one doctor admitted, “We had no strategy, no laboratories, no observation centers. We were completely unprepared” (139). Why do you think they were taken by surprise, and how might it relate to our previous essay, “The Really Big One”?

Q3: Treating a disease or outbreak has as much to do with medicine as it does the culture itself. What difficulties did Khan face in the psychology/beliefs of the Africans he treated? How might this explain why diseases such as ebola flourish more in developing nations than in, say, America?

Q4: Do you think the writer, Joshua Hammer, views Khan more as a heroic or a tragic figure? Is the point of the article to show how much a man can accomplish even against impossible odds (heroic), or is it to show how good people are doomed in circumstances of ignorance and corruption (tragic)? How does he want us to think/feel when we finish reading the article?

For Tuesday: Schulz, “The Really Big One” (p.183)

PART I: Definitions (define the following terms as they are used in the essay):

seismology (183); logarithimic (185); epoch (186); eradication (190); seaflooreeze (192); unwittingly (193); nonchalance (194); inundation (196)

PART II: Questions (answer 2 of the 4 questions below in a short paragraph—3-4 sentences, at least, and with sufficient detail to show you’ve read the essay and understand why this question is significant)

1. What does Schulz mean when she writes, “On the face of it, earthquakes seem to present us with problems of space...But, covertly, they also present us with problems of time” (199)? Why might time be the most important factor of understanding and preparing for the “next big one”?

2. Schulz calls the Cascadia subjunction “one of the greatest scientific detective stories of our time” (189). Why is this? What was the mystery that it helped solved—and why was it so tricky to solve?

3. If the resulting devastation from the “next big one” is so catastrophic, why is there no plan to deal with it—or even to prepare for it—in the Pacific Northwest? What’s preventing cities and agencies from learning from Japan’s example?

4. Writing about science is difficult, since for non-scientists it can quickly become dry and confusing. How does Schulz try to liven up her subject and also make us connect with the material? Focus on a specific passage that does this for you.

Welcome to the Course!

Welcome to Dr. Grasso's blog for Comp I, sections 11 and 14: I will post daily assignments, paper assignments, and other links and announcements here, so check often (and bookmark the site). Remember, we're using this instead of Blackboard, so no need to consult Blackboard for these assignments. Remember also to buy the two books for class as soon as you can: Best American Magazine Writing 2016 and The Men Who Stare at Goats. We'll start reading and writing soon!

A little bit about the course: This is a first-semester writing course that strives to accomplish two goals: (a) show the connection between reading and writing, and (b) make writing part of a local or global conversation with other writers. Once you become knowledgeable about a given topic, you can then add to the conversation with your own writing, which extends this discussion into new avenues of thought (or connects to old ones). Writing should never be something done to fill up space or to sound ‘smart’; the goal of writing is to communicate to an audience that shares your concerns, but may have never considered the topic from your point of view. Writing—and publishing your writing—has never been easier or more accessible than it is now. With a potential audience of millions on the internet and elsewhere, the burden is on you to actually have something to say!

E-mail me with any questions at jgrasso@ecok.edu 

[Note: the posts below this one are from a previous semester--they are not future work for the course! ]