Stella+Hart+6-E.T.

Roosevelt Student: 6-E.T.


 * Letters of Introduction ( **due 01.21.11 **) **

Hi Ellie -- I'm a junior English and music major at Drake, and I'm really excited to work with you through the Ex/Change Through Writing project. Hopefully, I'll be able to give you feedback on your writing that you'll find helpful. Being able to write well and to communicate effectively is an extremely valuable skill in every field, and I think that collaborating through this project will be beneficial for both of us. Developing competence as a writer also helps you become an intelligent and appreciative reader, and I think that that's an important aspect of education.

Looking forward to working with you!

Stella stella.hart@drake.edu

Hi Stella! I'm a junior at Roosevelt High School and I'm active in the art department. I enjoy drawing, painting and I'm very interested in music, as I see you are as well. I consider my strengths to be making arguments and defending what I believe in through my writing, and I would like to take this opportunity to make my writing flow with the thoughts in my head. My favorite subject is obviously English, because my teacher is going to read this. Other subjects I enjoy include Art, World History and Psychology. I am greatly looking forward to working with you, as I share the same views on the importance of communication as you do. I will add more later, but I'm being kicked off of the computer for now in order to continue class.

Thank you in advance for the help!

Ellie


 * Rough Draft - Definition ( ****RHS** due 01.27.11; **171** due 01.28.11 **) **

Morality often varies greatly from person to person. One man's morals may be tightly bound, while another's may be quite unrestricted. The idea of morality is obviously an extremely wide topic, but its definition remains relatively similar no matter where it is found. ** does this refer to global definitions of morality? ** Overall, morality is what is right and what is wrong to the individual in question; it is a system of personal beliefs and values, or lack thereof. ** solid definition of "morality," but i am confused on the "lack thereof" concept -- how does a lack of specific beliefs and values define an individual? is it fair to apply a "lack" of morality to someone who was raised with different values or in a different society, esp. if (as you note) morality "varies greatly from person to person"? **

While being either immoral or amoral require a person to lack or neglect a code of personal ethics, being moral is accepting these values. The concept of morality encompasses all three of them. It is the quality of being any of the aforementioned traits. ** interesting! so a person is moral if they behave according to values they know to be ethical, but if they behave against these values knowingly (while still believing them to be moral) then they are unethical? if you think this is a valid argument, can you think of any examples to support your statement? **

In the United States today, we face more moral issues than we know what to do with. What should be done about abortion? Why are tax dollars going towards the war effort when they could be invested in education? Should marriage between a man and a woman still be the only acceptable option in our modern society? Is it alright to scientifically experiment on animals with the intention of discovery? ** good examples! ** All of these questions have answers that will depend heavily on the person who has been asked. The religious, family, genetic, and social aspects of each individual's life will lead them to different conclusions. ** how does this contribute to how we create/perceive morality as individuals? as societies? ** Their morality, whether they have a set of personal morals or not, will help them decide. ** are there any people who truly do not operate under a system of personal morals? is it ever okay for someone to do something immoral (for example, lie) if they are trying to accomplish a moral goal (lying to a friend's abusive boyfriend when he asks where the friend is). **

Finally, morality is a question of whether or not a person sets boundaries for himself in the form of his ideals. It is whether person is moral, immoral, or somewhere in between. The issue of morality can easily be a wide and complex subject, but to sum it up, it is simply what is believed to be right and what should be wrong.


 * Hi Ellie -- this is a nice start! Obviously, you have a great grasp on the mechanics of writing (grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc.). My main suggesting: try expanding your points to clarify the complex high-concepts you touch on throughout your essay. This will improve the strength and persuasiveness of your argument! **


 * Revision - Definition ( ****RHS** due 01.31.11; **171** due 02.01.11

Morality often varies greatly from person to person. One man's morals may be tightly bound, while another's may be quite unrestricted. The idea of morality is obviously an extremely wide topic, but its definition remains relatively similar no matter where it is found. Overall, morality is what is right and what is wrong to the individual in question; a system of personal beliefs and values, or lack thereof.

When defining morality, many different sources may have many different answers. "Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" is the definition set forth by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ** nice -- citing a source adds support to your argument! ** Being either moral or immoral require a person to have good or bad morals, but if someone is amoral, they completely neglect a code of ethics; there is no question of right or wrong. ** defining these different terms really improves clarity for someone unfamiliar with this concept! ** The concept of morality encompasses all three of these concepts. It is the quality of being any of the aforementioned states of moral identity. ** very clear/succinct definition! **

In the United States today, we face more moral issues than we know what to do with. ** does this imply that it is society's responsibility to define moral boundaries? is that possible? is it our government's duty to legislate morality, or do privacy concerns come into play? ** What should be done about abortion? Why are tax dollars going towards the war effort when they could be invested in education? Should marriage between a man and a woman still be the only acceptable option in our modern society? Is it alright to scientifically experiment on animals with the intention of discovery? All of these questions have answers that will depend heavily on the person who has been asked. What is right for one person may be entirely unacceptable to another. The religious, family, environmental, and social aspects of each individual's life will lead them to different conclusions. Their morality, or whether they have a set of personal morals or not, will help them decide.

In conclusion, morality is a question of whether or not a person sets boundaries for himself in the form of his ideals. It is whether person is moral, immoral, or somewhere in the complete opposite direction. The issue of morality can easily be a wide and complex subject, but to sum it up, it is simply where we fall on the scale of ethics set by our society.


 * I think one of the strengths of your paper is the way it's focus begins broadly (morality is perceived in a wide variety of ways by different people) and then narrowing as your paper continues (the United States today, personal conceptions of morality). Taking this a step further -- maybe you could choose one specific moral issue that you find interesting and examine it from a few different perspectives, giving reasons for how different individuals may justify their opinions on the issue? **


 * Also, it was great getting to meet you at Drake last week! I am jealous you had a snow day. :) **


 * FINAL - Definition ( ****RHS** due 02.02.11; **171** due 02.04.11 **) **

<span style="font: 14px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">Morality often varies greatly from person to person. One man's morals may be tightly bound, while another's may be quite unrestricted. The idea of morality is obviously an extremely wide topic, but its definition remains relatively similar no matter where it is found. Overall, morality is what is right and what is wrong to the individual in question; a system of personal beliefs and values, or lack thereof.

<span style="font: 14px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">When defining morality, many different sources may have many different answers. "Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons" is the definition set forth by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Being either moral or immoral require a person to have good or bad morals, but if someone is amoral, they completely neglect a code of ethics; there is no question of right or wrong. The concept of morality encompasses all three of these concepts. It is the quality of being any of the aforementioned states of moral identity.

<span style="font: 14px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">In the United States today, we face more moral issues than we know what to do with. What should be done about abortion? Why are tax dollars going towards the war effort when they could be invested in education? Should marriage between a man and a woman still be the only acceptable option in our modern society? All of these questions have answers that will depend heavily on the person who has been asked. What is right for one person may be entirely unacceptable to another. The religious, family, environmental, and social aspects of each individual's life will lead them to different conclusions. Their morality, or whether they have a set of personal morals or not, will help them decide.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;">Morality is often defined by a society; what is acceptable and what is not in that particular social group. An example of this is animal treatment. In one location animal sacrifice may be an everyday part of life and is even seen as honorable. But in others, certain types of animals are treated like gods and people are heavily fined and imprisoned if they kill or mistreat them. So, it is important to understand that morality is based on a larger scale than just one person.

<span style="font: 14px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">In conclusion, morality is a question of whether or not a person sets boundaries for himself in the form of his ideals. It is whether person is moral, immoral, or somewhere in the complete opposite direction. The issue of morality can easily be a wide and complex subject, but to sum it up, it is simply where we fall on the scale of ethics set by our society and by ourselves.

Haha, yes the snow day was a definite plus. :) It was great to meet you as well!


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #1 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.08.11; **171** due 02.11.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

I feel that through this process I have improved the most on my ability to make my ideas more coherent with the help of supporting details. I think what helped me the most was your suggestion to move from the bigger picture to smaller examples through the paper. In the future I will probably need the most help with getting the ideas flowing through my head and deciding if they make sense or not. Thank you so much for all of the help you've given me so far on my overall fluency, it's great working with you!

I'm glad you feel like you've gotten some benefits from this partnership! Looking over the evolving drafts of your essay, I think you have a great handle on how to develop and expand your papers. You had a great first draft, too, which provided a solid basis for your further revisions. Your final paper really demonstrates a thoughtful, comprehensive take on an abstract concept, and I think you did a great job providing reasons for your definition of morality. For me, it's been really interesting to see how my feedback has prompted different responses in your writing -- especially when you come up with something that I hadn't thought of as a possible addition. I'll do my best to help you as much as I can with your future writing. Thanks for being my partner!

Stella


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Rough Draft - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.16.11; **171** due 02.18.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

Okay... so pretty much nobody knows what we're supposed to be doing with this paper, myself included. I honestly have been thinking about it the whole weekend and I really don't understand the assignment, what its asking of us, or even the general construction of it. I'm planning on asking Ms. Lange for help tomorrow. Although if I know her, we'll already be discussing it in class because of the general lack of comprehension. I'm really sorry this is so late, I thank you for your cooperation! -Ellie

Hey, Ellie -- this is Ms. Lange. Feel free to check what your classmates are writing about. They seem to have the idea of classification under their belt :) Many are using the same format that Stephanie Ericsson is using in "The Ways We Lie," although some have worked more Scott Russell Sanders' "The Men We Carry in Our Minds" -- both were essays I assigned to use as references in your writing. I'm sorry I didn't see you to discuss this work outside of class. Please just let me know that you need to see me -- and I'll always make time for you.


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 02.23.11; **171** due 02.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

Morality, when looked at only briefly, can easily seem like a daunting and complicated subject. This is true of many broad topics, but the key is to break them down. **via classification and division! :)** Only when morality is divided into categories can it be simply digested. **good reason for the purpose of your essay** While it can obviously be split many different ways, the idea of morality is best understood when broken into the categories; global morality, cultural morality, and personal morality. **why is it important to understand morality?**

Global Morality

When morality is viewed on a global scale it can be somewhat intimidating to analyze, but when one takes into account that not one person on Earth is the exact same as someone else, and that each of those people fit into a culture, one will realize that the global level is the least complex category. This is the level in which it is almost difficult to come up with an overlapping moral rule for everyone in it because it covers such wide ground. One example is that it is generally accepted globally that killing is not moral, although there are exceptions such as war. The killing of animals is a much different story, according to area. **these are great contrasting examples!** Because we as a people are so variant, it is nearly impossible to come up with a list of shared moral causes on a global scale. **how does this impact globalization and contemporary global relationships between countries? do you think that it is possible -- thanks to globalization -- that one day there may be an all-encompassing "global morality"?**

Cultural Morality

The cultural level of morality is a lot more complex than global. Cultures are just as different as individual people, but there are fewer of them, so they are of middle complexity. An example of cultural morality relating to animal treatment is bullfighting in Spain. It is a practice that has been embedded in the Spanish culture, and is difficult to pull away from. Many people believe that to abolish bullfighting would be to take away part of Spain's culture, but just as many if not more people now believe that it is outdated and simply immoral to continue this sport. **great point** This new activism is quickly catching on in Spain and currently only one active bullfighting ring remains. Because cultures around the world are so varied, each contains an extremely diverse moral code. **does this imply that cultural morality evolves? are pressures to end bullfighting coming from internal sources (Spanish people who, even though are engulfed in Spanish culture, find bullfighting barbaric) or external sources (ie: Canadians who think bullfighting is barbaric) or both? how does this relate to "the preservation of culture," especially in terms of the preservation of a culture's moralistic norms? if the Aztecs were still around and practicing human sacrifices/cannibalism as part of cultural rites, would this be morally permissible?**

Personal Morality

One's own personal morality is the most complex category of the three because it contains bits and pieces of both the other sections, as well as a completely unique makeup of beliefs. Some morals are set by the very standard of being human, or by a person's cultural backround, but the rest is up to personal interpretation. For example, I have always believed in animal rights and it is my own belief that it is immoral to kill and eat animals for food in an inhumane way when there are other ways to get essential nutrients. **how does this directly stem from your place in western culture? in another culture, would it be possible to be a vegetarian if you did not have access to vitamin supplements or alternative sources of nutrients associated with meat?** I have been a vegetarian since I was six years old. **cool cool cool!** This is one of my own personal moral choices. There are over 6.8 billion people living on Earth today, and that is also the number of unique moral interpretations that exist. **i like this sentence a lot; impact!**

While all people have different beliefs and morals, cultures as well as the world as a whole share certain ideas that overlap each other. One thing that is acceptable to an individual may not be considered the collective moral of a culture, or of the globe. Just as everyone has their own beliefs, it is important to understand that every society has it's own as well, and that that should be respected to a degree. When it is no longer globally moral is when there should be an intervention. **i like your caveat. can you describe some scenarios where it would be necessary for intervention?**


 * Ellie! Great start; this is very well organized, and the reasons for why you have classified and divided components of this issue in this way (global, cultural, personal) are well-reasoned. I think one of the strengths of your paper is how you apply one issue (the treatment of animals) to all three divisions of your concept. Perhaps, going in to more detail on how global/cultural/individual definitions of morality are merging or differing (especially in regard to contemporary issues and globalization) may be a way to develop another argument within your paper?**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Classification/Division ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.01.11; **171** due 03.04.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">Morality, when looked at only briefly, can easily seem like a daunting and complicated subject. This is true of many broad topics, but the key is to break them down. Only when morality is divided into categories can it be simply digested. While it can obviously be split many different ways, the idea of morality is best understood when broken into the categories; global morality, cultural morality, and personal morality.

<span style="display: block; font: 12px/19px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0px; text-align: center;">Global Morality

<span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">When morality is viewed on a global scale it can be somewhat intimidating to analyze, but when one takes into account that not one person on Earth is the exact same as someone else, and that each of those people fit into a culture, one will realize that the global level is the least complex category. **Is it true that everyone fits into a culture? What about deviants who either remove themselves or act against cultural norms? Are you referencing "mainstream" culture, or encapsulating all subcultures of one society under a broadly-based umbrella of "national culture"?** <span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">This is the level in which it is almost difficult to come up with an overlapping moral rule for everyone in it because it covers such wide ground. One example is that it is generally accepted globally that killing is not moral, although there are exceptions such as war. The killing of animals is a much different story, according to area. Because we as a people are so variant, it is nearly impossible to come up with a list of shared moral causes on a global scale. While this is true today, it is possible because of the blending of cultures that our global morality may be evened out to a degree in the future.

<span style="display: block; font: 12px/19px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0px; text-align: center;">Cultural Morality

<span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">The cultural level of morality is a lot more complex than global. Cultures are just as different as individual people, but there are fewer of them, so they are of middle complexity. An example of cultural morality relating to animal treatment is bullfighting in Spain. It is a practice that has been embedded in the Spanish culture, and is difficult to pull away from. Many people believe that to abolish bullfighting would be to take away part of Spain's culture, but just as many if not more people now believe that it is outdated and simply immoral to continue this sport. **this is another interesting point -- perhaps you could draw comparisons to other cultural norms that came to be viewed as "immoral" -- for example, castrati opera singers who were castrated as children to ensure the preservation of their high, clear voices. the last-known castrato only died in the 19th century! what does this (and bullfighting) say about the willingness/unwillingness of cultures to shift their moral beliefs?** <span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">Because of both the pressures of outside cultures and Spain's younger generation, these new beliefs are quickly catching on and currently only one active bullfighting ring remains in Barcelona. Because cultures around the world are so varied, each contains an extremely diverse moral code, and they are constantly evolving and changing.

<span style="display: block; font: 12px/19px 'Times New Roman'; margin: 0px; text-align: center;">Personal Morality

<span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">One's own personal morality is the most complex category of the three because it contains bits and pieces of both the other sections, as well as a completely unique makeup of beliefs. Some morals are set by the very standard of being human, or by a person's cultural backround, but the rest is up to personal interpretation. For example, I have always believed in animal rights and it is my own belief that it is immoral to kill and eat animals for food in an inhumane way when there are other ways to get essential nutrients. I have been a vegetarian since I was six years old, and this is one of my own personal moral choices. **I am glad you incorporated personal experience into your essay!** <span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">Even if I would love for everyone in the world to be a vegetarian, I know that it is simply not possible given individual circumstances and beliefs, therefore it is not a thing that I like to push. There are over 6.8 billion people living on Earth today, and that is also the number of unique moral interpretations that exist.

<span style="font: 12px/19px Times New Roman; margin: 0px;">While all people have different beliefs and morals, cultures as well as the world as a whole share certain ideas that overlap each other. One thing that is acceptable to an individual may not be considered the collective moral of a culture, or of the globe. Just as everyone has their own beliefs, it is important to understand that every society has it's own as well, and that this should be respected to the degree in which they are no longer globally acceptable.


 * Ellie -- Very well-organized, well-reasoned paper! I still think it would be interesting if you classified exactly what is considered "globally acceptable" grounds for international intervention -- and has this concept evolved over time? How has globalization effected it's rate? Furthermore, how has globalization effected the concept of "morality" on global, national, and personal terms?**
 * Hope you have a great spring break! :)**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #2 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.22.11; **171** due 03.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Rough Draft - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 03.30.11; **171** due 04.01.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

So I guess here is a pretty good idea of what I would like to do with this argument essay. First off, I'll be arguing against a bill proposed by Representative Annette Sweeney that is in the Iowa senate currently. The bill would make it illegal to document, distribute, or even possess images, sound recordings and videos of animal abuse and misconduct in places like slaughterhouses, puppy mills and livestock holding facilities. Here are some points to my argument: - the bill would make Iowans look extremely ignorant and uneducated, as it is the first bill to be this strict on the issue in the U.S. and is seen as a fairly radical step nation wide.

- it is a first amendment right to know where our food comes from and to know what we are paying for.

- food operations cannot be run behind closed doors, it is a safety concern. (example: recent egg recall) these places must be regulated and kept under checks and balances to make sure everything is being kept under guidelines

- technology is the newest form of police, video cameras record almost everything we do outside of our houses to make sure everything is kept in order, livestock operations should not be an exception

- this bill is designed to protect corporate farms and the meat industry. when stories like the egg recall get out they lose money and get a bad name. some companies will do nearly anything to keep consumption levels up.

- there is a great need to keep the "perfect family-owned farm" image in consumers' heads instead of the reality of farming in America today which is purely for profit, not the so-called American dream.

- supporters of the bill claim that video footage is staged, but they ultimately have no proof to back up this claim

This is obviously just a rough start, but I wanted to see what you thought about it before I began to get too into it. I really like this topic. I've been following the bill since it was released and I even went to the capitol one day to talk to House Representatives about it, so needless to say I'm very passionate about it. Hopefully that will make for a good and informatively persuasive essay.

Thanks! Ellie


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Hi Ellie! This sounds like a great topic -- obviously, you are very invested and interested in animal rights and this issue specifically. I bet that will really come through in your paper! I've copied/pasted your main points below, with some hopefully helpful questions and ideas on how you will present them: **

- the bill would make Iowans look extremely ignorant and uneducated, as it is the first bill to be this strict on the issue in the U.S. and is seen as a fairly radical step nation wide. **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">In what ways would Iowans look ignorant/uneducated? Who do you think this legislation is intended to benefit? What makes Iowa an especially important setting for this legislation? **

- it is a first amendment right to know where our food comes from and to know what we are paying for. **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">How so? Exactly what language from the first amendment protects or creates this right? **

- food operations cannot be run behind closed doors, it is a safety concern. (example: recent egg recall) these places must be regulated and kept under checks and balances to make sure everything is being kept under guidelines **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Who is conducting such investigation -- private citizens? Is there a specific government agency dedicated to the protection of animals/monitoring farm production? If not, do you think there should be? **

- technology is the newest form of police, video cameras record almost everything we do outside of our houses to make sure everything is kept in order, livestock operations should not be an exception **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">But isn't constant surveillance a violation of privacy and our Constitutional rights? Shouldn't farmers be allowed to conduct their businesses? Is there a reason to make agriculture an exception? **

- this bill is designed to protect corporate farms and the meat industry. when stories like the egg recall get out they lose money and get a bad name. some companies will do nearly anything to keep consumption levels up. **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Does this imply that the only aim of farmers is to accumulate a profit? How does this go against popular notions of the Iowan/American farmer? How many farms are owned by private families, and how many are owned by large agricultural corporations? **

- there is a great need to keep the "perfect family-owned farm" image in consumers' heads instead of the reality of farming in America today which is purely for profit, not the so-called American dream. **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;"> This ties in well with your last point! **

- supporters of the bill claim that video footage is staged, but they ultimately have no proof to back up this claim **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Is there proof that the footage is real? **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Overall, I think you're on your way to writing an interesting, thoughtful, and persuasive paper! Make sure that you draw from outside sources, and if possible include your interviews with the House Representatives! Good luck! **


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (1) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.05.11; **171** due 04.08.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">Iowa bill SF431. You may not know it by its official name, or you may not know of it at all. If either of these are the case, the bill was introduced by House Representative Annette Sweeney on the first of March, 2011, and if put into law would make it illegal to document, distribute, or even possess images, sound recordings, and videos of animal abuse and misconduct in places like slaughterhouses, puppy mills and livestock holding facilities. While those in favor of the bill claim it will protect the food industry, those against it suspect that it will only be a case of shooting the messenger. **Why does the food industry need "protection"? Where does this imply about America's priorities: that it is better to make money than to monitor agricultural practices and promote the moral/non-abusive treatment of animals?**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">Many people may wonder why this bill should effect them or matter in their daily lives. Passing this bill allows for corner cutting in sanitation and animal care. The fact that no one is watching makes it possible for the most cost effective route to be taken, whether it means compromising conditions for the animals or cutting down on sanitation measures. It is not only a matter of moral judgement, but of food safety. **How is it a matter of moral judgment? You may think this is obvious, but perhaps your reader has not considered animal agriculture in terms of ethical implications?** The FDA is of course responsible for monitoring these facilities, but according to General Daniel R. Levinson who did a study entitled FDA Inspections of Domestic Food Facilities, "On average, FDA inspects less than a quarter of food facilities a year, and the number of facilities inspected has declined over time." He goes on to say that "fifty-six percent of food facilities have gone five or more years without an FDA inspection." **Why is this allowed to happen? Is the FDA underfunded? Are farmers avoiding inspection in some way?** This of course is unacceptable when we have outbreaks due to sanitation problems such as the recent egg recall. By allowing videos and pictures to be taken of such abuse, there may be a lower percentage of recalls and sicknesses. **Are these the only reasons that the bill should not be enacted -- to protect people? What about the animals that may be mistreated without consequence to farmers?**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">While those in favor of the bill claim that the footage taken in slaughterhouses is a false representation and may be staged, there is no proof of these accusations. The videos will stand as their own proof of abuse until they are disproven. If there is truly nothing destructive going on behind these closed doors, then there is no reason why it needs to be hidden. **Who are the people who create such footage? Are they animal rights activists? Consumer advocates? Would this bill interfere with their right to practice free speech?**

It will definitely be longer than this, but its just a basis for my ideas.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">**Hi Ellie -- Good start! My main recommendation is to work to flesh out your points (especially in regard to the moral implications of this bill and what it says about the way our society treats farmers, businesses, consumers, and animals) and consider different angles to your arguments. I look forward to reading your revision!**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">Revision (2) - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.13.11; **171** due 04.15.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">Iowa bill SF431: you may not know it by its official name, or you may not know of it at all. If either of these are the case, the bill was introduced by House Representative Annette Sweeney on the first of March, 2011, and if put into law would make it illegal to document, distribute, or even possess images, sound recordings, and videos of animal abuse and misconduct in places like slaughterhouses, puppy mills and livestock holding facilities. While those in favor of the bill claim it will protect the food industry, those against it suspect that it will only be a case of shooting the messenger. **Is this bill likely to pass? How will Sweeney gain politically as a proponent/originator of this bill? Who contributed to her campaign -- any agricultural corporations?**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">Many people may wonder why this bill should effect them or matter in their daily lives. Passing this bill allows for corner cutting in sanitation and animal care. The fact that no one is watching makes it possible for the most cost effective route to be taken, whether it means compromising conditions for the animals or cutting down on sanitation measures. **I'm able to follow your argument very well!** It is not only a matter of moral judgement in regard to both the animals and how humans treat each other, but of food safety. The FDA is responsible for monitoring these facilities, but according to General Daniel R. Levinson who did a study entitled FDA Inspections of Domestic Food Facilities, "On average, FDA inspects less than a quarter of food facilities a year, and the number of facilities inspected has declined over time." He goes on to say that due to cuts in staff, "fifty-six percent of food facilities have gone five or more years without an FDA inspection." **Your points are strengthened with the statistics/quotes provided by General Levinson!** This of course is unacceptable when we have outbreaks due to sanitation problems such as the recent egg recall. By allowing videos and pictures to be taken of such abuse, there may be a lower percentage of recalls and sicknesses. **If documenting farm practices is legal now, are they effective? Have any charges been filed relying on such evidence?**

<span style="font: 13px/19px Arial; margin: 0px;">People deserve to know where their food comes from and what they pay for, plain and simple. We have the right to know if our food is coming from unsanitary and inhumane locations if that is what we so choose. **Would you suggest that another bill should be implemented -- one that requires mandatory images/disclaimers on packaging or produce that indicates whether the product was created on a humane/organic/inspected farm?** This bill would also make Iowa the forerunner in promoting this position on agriculture. If seen from an outside perspective it seems that Iowa cares more about protecting large farming corporations from failure than it does about the safety of its animals and general population. **Great point -- does Iowa provide an example to other agricultural states? Would this bill set a dangerous precedent?** The driving arguments behind this bill make Iowa look uneducated and ignorant because of our created image of the perfect American family-owned farm. This description is entirely inaccurate in our modern times. **How so? Can you describe the current situation? How many family-owned farms exist in Iowa? How many are owned by corporations? How have these figures changed in the last ten years? The last fifty years? Last 100 years?** The image of sweat and tears and calloused hands has been overrun by our corporate, machine-powered system. The care for the art of food production has been lost and in its place is a cold and emotionless environment where there are no direct repercussions for cut corners. By not allowing an inside look into the way things are run, it should not be a matter of privacy, but a question of what there is to hide.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">While those in favor of the bill claim that the footage taken in slaughterhouses is a false representation and may be staged, there is no proof of these accusations. The videos will stand as their own proof of abuse until they are disproven. If there is truly nothing destructive going on behind these closed doors, then there is no reason why it needs to be hidden. For the safety and piece of mind of the people who consume these products daily, it is simply backtracking to make this footage illegal.

<span style="font: 13px/19px Helvetica; margin: 0px;">**Hi Ellie! I think the changes you've made to your paper have helped to expand and clarify some of your points, which is great! I think that it would help if you described the current agricultural industry, as well as the reasons why Annette Sweeney is sponsoring this bill.**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">FINAL - Argument ( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.19.11; **171** due 04.22.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **

Iowa bill SF431: you may not know it by its official name, or you may not know of it at all. If either of these are the case, the bill was introduced by House Representative Annette Sweeney on the first of March, 2011, and if put into law would make it illegal to document, distribute, or even possess images, sound recordings, and videos of animal abuse and misconduct in places like slaughterhouses, puppy mills and livestock holding facilities. While those in favor of the bill claim it will protect the food industry, those against it suspect that it will only be a case of shooting the messenger.

Many people may wonder why this bill should effect them or matter in their daily lives. Passing this bill allows for corner cutting in sanitation and animal care. The fact that no one is watching makes it possible for the most cost effective route to be taken, whether it means compromising conditions for the animals or cutting down on sanitation measures. It is not only a matter of moral judgment in regard to both the animals and how humans treat each other, but of food safety. The FDA is responsible for monitoring these facilities, but according to General Daniel R. Levinson who did a study entitled FDA Inspections of Domestic Food Facilities, "On average, FDA inspects less than a quarter of food facilities a year, and the number of facilities inspected has declined over time." He goes on to say that due to cuts in staff, "fifty-six percent of food facilities have gone five or more years without an FDA inspection." This of course is unacceptable when we have outbreaks due to sanitation problems such as the recent egg recall. Even if recordings of abuse do not immediately stop the abuse, they can be extremely effective in convicting the people responsible, therefore preventing them from doing it again. By allowing videos and pictures to be taken of such abuse, there may be a lower percentage of recalls and sicknesses.

People deserve to know where their food comes from and what they pay for, plain and simple. We have the right to know if our food is coming from unsanitary and inhumane locations if that is what we so choose. This bill would also make Iowa the forerunner in promoting this position on agriculture, which is especially dangerous because Iowa is such an influential state for farming. If seen from an outside perspective it seems that Iowa cares more about protecting large farming corporations from failure than it does about the safety of its animals and general population. The driving arguments behind this bill make Iowa look uneducated and ignorant because of our created image of the perfect American family-owned farm. This description is entirely inaccurate in our modern times. The image of sweat and tears and calloused hands has been overrun by our corporate, machine-powered system. The care for the art of food production has been lost and in its place is a cold and emotionless environment where there are no direct repercussions for cut corners. It is no surprise that major supporters and sponsors of the bill are Monsanto, an organization that supports biotechnology in agriculture, and many poultry, cattle and pork producers. These are people who will directly lose profit if hidden agricultural operations are exposed. By not allowing an inside look into the way things are run, it should not be a matter of privacy, but a question of what there is to hide.

While those in favor of the bill claim that the footage taken in slaughterhouses is a false representation and may be staged, there is no proof of these accusations. The videos will stand as their own proof of abuse until they are disproven. If there is truly nothing destructive going on behind these closed doors, then there is no reason why it needs to be hidden. Many people say that this is the exact opposite that needs to be done; that it should be made a requirement for farms to be videotaped, but that is an entirely different argument. For now, for the safety and piece of mind of the people who consume these products daily, it is simply backtracking to make this footage illegal.

**Hi Ellie --**


 * First off, great job. You deserve to be really proud of this paper -- it's well-constructed and engaging, and your passion for what you're talking about really comes through in your tone, language, imagery, and even in the construction of your argument.**
 * In terms of working towards improvement, I still think you could work to delve deeper into your points. Don't be afraid to examine uncomfortable issues; obviously, you have a talent in picking out the morally-ambiguous components of an issue in order to subject them to your personal standards of what's ethically acceptable and socially responsible. You should feel free to present an opposing viewpoint and then deconstruct it and explain why it is fallacious or malformed.**

**I have really enjoyed getting to work with you this semester! Good luck and best wishes with everything, I'm sure that you'll be successful in whatever you decide to pursue!** **Stella**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">REFLECTION #3 ****<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">( **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">**RHS** due 04.25.11 **<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',sans-serif;">) **