Two Annotations

Mere, R.J.. "Deer Overpopulation is a Serious Problem". American Deer and Wildlife Alliance. March 20, 2012 http://www.deerwildlifealliance.org/Deer-Overpopulation-is-a-Serious-Problem.htm

The first source I have is an article about the severe overpopulation of deer, specifically in Southern Maine. R.J. Mere states that in some coastal communities there are as many as four times the amount of deer per square mile that it is equipped for. Once they eat the food that summer has produced, they move to eating people's plants and other less nutritious food options. He discusses the different predators in the area for deer such as coyotes, black bears, and wolves. None of these can single-handedly control this overpopulation, which leaves humans as the main predator for these deer and their best hope. He presents the different methods that have been offered as potential solutions and then explains why they won't be successful. He then offers his own idea of how to get this issue under control and explains to us why it will work.



Augsburger, Randy. "Why hunting is important for population control". Helium. March 20, 2012 <http://www.helium.com/items/1352081-deer-population>.   
 

The second source I have is an article about how hunting is a necessary and humane way to control the overpopulation of deer. The article begins with Augsburger presenting the main issue, that whitetail deer populations are at an all time high in most areas. He states that this overpopulation can cause malnutrition as well as increased auto collisions. In a perfect world, animals and humans would have their own space, but we as humans are encroaching on the deers habitat. A study in Michigan was discussed in which a deer herd was left unchecked by hunting and the herd grew to ten times the optimal level. After this, the fawn survival rate dropped drastically due to too much competition for food so the does abandoned their fawns. His overall point is that hunting is a humane and efficient way to keep these deer populations in check.

Free Write

I've had a really tough time getting started with this paper. The difficulty and length of Foucault and Berger's articles have given me some trouble. It's obvious that all three articles relate to the power. Berger talks about the power of images, Foucault talks about the division of power through the Panopticon, and West looks at power and the burdens that accompany it. That being said, I don't have a firm grasp on this assignment, but right now I feel like the best way to bring these works back to a common theme is to look at them as all explaining how to optimize power.

Summary of Foucault's Panopticism

         Foucault begins the piece by talking about the measures that used to be taken on a plague stricken town. During these times, he says, "The gaze is alert everywhere." They were treated like prisoners which is evident through use of language like, "everyone locked up in his cage, everyone at his own window..." Foucault ties this into the Panopticon, which is a circular room with an observation tower in the middle, and cells all around the walls. The panopticon ensures the correct functioning of power. The inhabitants of the outer rooms do not know if someone is in the observation tower so they must always behave as if there is, and anyone can be in the observation tower because the inhabitants can't see them anyways. Panopticism is similar to modern institutions such as hospitals, schools, and prisons. I feel like what Bentham was saying, and what Foucault was interpreting, is that this is an improvement on our systems we have today. It disburses power instead of giving it all to one person like a warden of a prison.

Response to Madsen

       Kyle Madsen made some interesting arguments about my article, "Why Bother?" I must disagree with some of the counter-argumaents he made though,and counter with some of my own. Madsen says, my "angle of vision may be too dominant and intense for some readers." Well, the way I see it, as an author, is if you're not passionate and intense about what you're writing about, what reason does the reader have to be? Had i written this article with no fire or desperate tone, it definitely would not have had the same effect.
     Madsen also mentions that I put too much stress on the garden-grownig aspect of going green. However, in my text I mention that we should, "change our light bulbs" multiple times. I put more emphasis on growing a garden because that is what interests me, but I give the reader many other ideas and options on how to "go green." I give many other suggestions other than changing light bulbs like, walking or riding a bike to work, turning down the thermostat, and getting off the beef. So, while Madsen's counter-arguments are educated and well thought out, I simply do not agree with them.
 

Clifford Geertz

      Clifford Geertz made a trip to Bali with his wife for anthropological studies. When he first got there, the Balinese acted like he didn’t even exist. They weren’t mean to him they just ignored him. This continued until they were at a local cockfight, which is illegal, that got busted up by the police. All the locals scattered and ran away, so they did to. This gained the respect of the locals and the locals welcomed them into their town. 


     Geertz goes into the details of Balinese cockfighting. He talks about a man's relationship with his cock, and how intimate it is. He talks about how the fight is run as far as the participants, the match up process, the timing mechanism, the so-called referee, and even the betting process. 


    He learns through his time in Bali, that the cockfights hold more meaning than just making money. They hold deep cultural meaning to the Balinese. It helps define people's social status and gives them a chance to earn pride. It displays their loyalty as a people. Everyone bets on the cock that is owned by their kin. It is more of a social battle than a battle between the cocks. Geertz concludes that cockfighting is the center point of Balinese culture and where all anthropologists wishing to learn more about them should start. 

Geertz Quote

"Most of the time, in any case, the cocks fly almost immediately at one another in a wing-beating, head-thrusting, leg-kicking, explosion of animal fury so pure, so absolute, and in its own way so beautiful, as to be almost abstract, a platonic concept of hate."


This quote interests me because it's one I used to support my statement in class that the writer is talking to a very general audience. I chose it here because Jake explained to me that even those its directed toward the anthropological community and meant to educate it can still be entertaining. That's cool to me because in my experience with reading research papers or like things I haven't been entertained or really enjoyed reading them. This paper is definitely a good break from the beaten path of the classic, boring research paper.

OWS Summary

       In "Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street Will Do Next; Ask How We Will Change The Status Quo," the author begins by discussing how there there hasn't been much progress of late in the movement. He goes on to counter that with the idea that it has come along way from when it began. The movement has become a kind of reality television show, or a brand. He describes the two sets of people, 'the 99%' who are the have-nots, and 'the 1%' who are the elites.

     Another process similar to branding is reification. Wether you want to call it that or a brand it must me acknowledged before you can carry a conversation about politics nowadays. He says the way to revamp OWS is to resist it formation into a concrete thing rather than an idea. The explanation of Wall Street is that "we" as a person can participate in the stock market but only a select few have the power and wealth to sway the market. We have the illusion that we have an influence on the stock market. OWS called Wall Street's bluff, saying that they are pretending to be public but really it is all in the private interest. He says they were acting in the interest of the people. They were occupying for us. Today, the two parties co-exist. He concludes with the idea that we need to keep asking questions that challenge the status qou and change the thinking of Wall Street from "them" to "us".