A Summary of J. Fitzgerald's OWS Article

Jason Fitzgerald, an English student at Columbia University, begins the article by discussing how the Occupy Wall Street Movement has shifted in the eyes of America from where it started. The movement seems to be on pause due to the winter months and has become a side note for journalists who are primarily focused on the upcoming presidential election. The movement is no longer full of enigma and energy as it was in late October/early November. While some may think the movement has run its course others believe it is simply hibernating and will come back stronger than ever in the spring months. Due to the media, protests, police intervention, and human mics the movement has been branded in the minds of the nation. When people think of the Occupy Wall Street movement they now think of, “that left-wing activist thing that puts up tents, sponsor rallies, … and gets Michael Moore excited.” The movement must break this branding or, “reification” in order to bring back the power of the movement and recaptivate its audience, which is the, “99%”. Fitzgerald than states to view Occupy Wall Street as a claim: “that private interest is a public problem.”  Fitzgerald then begins to explain that Wall Street has a high seat of power by representing the health of the nation and that if this is to be then the people of the nation should have a voice in what happens on the stock market. The argument is that only few wealthy people can afford to have an influence on Wall Street and those few use that power to control the stock market for their personal gains. In this system the average income earning citizen has no control over what the stock market does and will either benefit or pay for the top 1% decisions. Fitzgerald wraps up the article by inviting his readers to find new ways to challenge the status quo instead of pondering what, "those people" in the Occupy Wall Street movement will do next.

1st Post!

My Definition of Strong Reading

Strong Reading is when a reader devotes a large amount of attention and time to a text, interpreting it with their personal ideas and experiences while also being considerate to different perspectives.

Reading With and Against the Grain

One book that I read against the grain was a biography of JFK. Even though I read this book in middle school and don't remember many specific details I mention it to people often. The reason I mention it is because I can't recall ever fighting with a book the way I fought with this biography. Every sentence seemed biased and skewed. The biography even managed to ignore JFK's use of painkillers and stimulants during his presidency. Anything that could possibly raise a doubt to JFK's character was conveniently left out. Throughout the entire book I was frustrated and found myself fighting the author's viewpoints and reasoning. 

One book that I have read with the grain is the Bible. I was raised in a Christian household and count myself as a Christian today. When you have been raised to believe something your entire life the last thing you do as a child is question it. Instead we try to have faith, love as Jesus loves, and look for examples in our lives where we can help others and share this love. To question it seemed wrong. I never did ask questions until one day when I was talking with a fellow Christian, a bible study instructor, and he told me that I should ask questions. He said that by asking questions and finding answers through every day life and prayer our faith grows stronger. So I'm not condemning reading the Bible with the grain, I still often do. I just discovered that reading with and against the grain both have their benefits and that I shouldn't be afraid to practice both with everything I read.