Commentary #4: Lindsey O.

            It seems like your proposal is for the media to show both sides of the war—the good and the bad.  The reason why I say “it seems like” is because near the end of the essay I get confused as to what your proposal is.  However, I believe the previously stated proposal is what you are trying to get at.  Your body paragraph chunk begins with an example of literature and censorship.  I find that a clever move since you show how censorship has tried to be applied on books such as Huckleberry Finn.  The downside of this is that you focus too much on the literature aspect of censorship when you should briefly talk about the literature censorship then move on to censorship of wars.  If you condense the literature portion into one paragraph then proceed onto your main point, your proposal as a whole will seem more precise and on topic.

            Now on to the proposal itself.  The problem you bring up about censorship of wars does sound solvable since censorship would violate the First Amendment.  Therefore it would seem reasonable to not censor information during wars any more since you can indeed impose legislation against censorship.  As for the support you have for your proposal, your first point seems to propose another proposal where the media can use censorship during times of peace but not during times of war.  If that is what you meant by this support, you should find another source of support since this does not follow up with your main proposal.  When you bring up the Constitution, I find that the strongest support against censorship.  If you want to strengthen this paragraph, you may want to quote the part of the Constitution that supports the unconstitutionality of censorship.  As for the effectiveness of your solution, you don’t seem to provide any consequences of your proposal if it were to be carried out.  You may want to find possible consequences or just plainly state that you do not know the end result of your proposal.  You could always look to see if any other country has stopped censorship of the media and see the results of their actions.  As for the opposing argument, you have one argument about the leaking of military and government secrets, and you defend your proposal, which is great.  However, there can still be more negative consequences from not using censorship.  You should maybe find at least one more possible negative consequence from your proposal and either refute or accept it.  As for the cost of your proposal, there doesn’t seem to be much physical cost (money) involved since the proposal is basically allowing the media to publish almost everything from both sides.

            In regards to other possible counterproposals, I cannot think of any since this basically only needs legislation to be carried out.  However, you may want to strengthen your proposal with maybe one more support, then you should be set.

Commentary #3: Lindsey O.

            Your essay is about how censorship during wars is unethical.  First of all, your title is very straightforward, which in a way is good, but for a title, add some imagination to it.  Next is the introduction.  I like how you added the statistics of how much people watch/follow the news.  It shows how much news has become part of our lives, as you said in the first sentence.  However, when I get to the end of the paragraph, I think I know what your thesis is, but it is worded rather unclearly.  You may want to re-write it so that your stance on the issue is clear. 

The next paragraph is the first body paragraph.  It seems like there are two principles in this paragraph, but I can only spot one.  For that one, I feel like you should definitely just make another paragraph just for that principle since there is a sufficient amount of information you could say about it.  As for the other principle I have yet to put a finger on, you can either make it clearer and with more defense and match, or you can take it all away and just talk about the other principle that is clearly stated.  Moving onto the next body paragraph, the principle is clear and same goes for the match.  However, I can see you defending your principle more to make the paragraph much more solid.  The third body paragraph is the opposing argument and refutation.  You are fair to the other side of the argument, which is good.  However, your refutation is rather weak; it needs actual evidence/proof to make it a strong counterargument.  Then your next body paragraph goes back to being your argument.  First off, I think you should move this paragraph to before the refutation paragraph.  Also, this paragraph, though the criteria and match are clear and make sense, lacks evidence to back up your argument.  You need evidence to show that it happens to normal people like us, not just a select few.  The conclusion is pretty solid.

             As for the weighting of the criteria, it doesn’t seem like you have any emphasis on a certain criteria; they all seem equally weighted.  Now from a skeptical point of view, I would accept your criteria, but some criteria may need some defense to strengthen the argument, such as the third body paragraph’s criteria.  The match arguments also may benefit from more evidence, such as the last body paragraph about loss of privacy in mail.

"Vivisection" Response

*How does pity influence our decisions?

If we knew animals are able to think the same way we do, would vivisection supporters have a different opinion on the issue?

Should there a certain limit to which animal experimentation could reach?

            As most of us know, human emotions tend to have some type of influence on our decisions.  There are many emotions we could point out, but let’s focus on one we usually don’t think about: pity.  Every day I have to at least see one thing/person that I feel bad for.  There it is.  “I feel bad for”.  That right there is pity, but I never think of that emotion.  However, this pity that I feel indeed makes an impact on me.  Some times I would go out of my way to help out the person or thing (animal); other time I just walk past but then my day is ruined thinking of the ways I could have helped.  Pity pulls at your conscience with what you could have done to save that person’s day.  As we can see in the article, it is quite difficult to make a decision with no emotional influence.  After all, we are human beings.  The author points out pity for the animals and pity for the sick and dying.  Honestly, for me at least, by the end of the article, I feel like the author still has not reached a decision on what’s best to sacrifice since his pities conflict with each other.  You save one, you lose one.  However, which is the best to save?  At this point, one might think it is a simple decision since logically the answer is quite clear.  The world would have been so much simpler had decisions been based off of logic alone.  When choosing which species to sacrifice, pity and other emotions come into play, and from here, an argument stems.  Pity for one leads to the sacrifice of the other, but when there is pity for both in one’s conscience, who is to sacrifice?  When we actually stop to think about it, emotions play a huge part in our decision-making in day to day life, let alone in a controversial issue like this.

"Shooting an Elephant" Reponse

Why is it that Orwell talks about the pros and cons of his job in the beginning of the article?

*Is there a correlation between Orwell’s descriptions of imperialism and shooting the elephant?

Why does Orwell describe the shooting of the elephant in such great detail?

Some people find it hard to grasp the concept of imperialism and its effects on the conquered nation.  I feel like George Orwell gives a very simple yet all-encompassing description of this ruler and ruled relationship when describing the shooting of the elephant.  Personally, this article really kept my attention all the way until the end since it was so detailed.  I also wanted to know if my thoughts were right.  Indeed, to me at least, there is a correlation between imperialism and the shooting of the elephant.

I’ll keep it simple by pointing out the correlations.  The people that follow the shooter are the imperialist countries.  The elephant is the nation(s) being conquered.  The shooter represents the people who carry out the conquering.  The people back at home sit back and relax, and all they do is take in the profits made from exploiting the conquered people, just like the natives immediately just started taking the meat from the dying elephant.  The shooter may or may not have wanted to shoot the elephant, or take control over the nation, but the pressure from the natives, or the home country, forces him to carry out the action even if it were against his conscience.  He even said that the breathing of the elephant as it died really disturbed him while the people did not even notice that—they just took what they needed and ran off.  Just like the shooter, the people who go out to conquer the nations for the home country may be haunted by the images of the people and villages dying at their hands, but the people at home only look at how much profit is being made and asking for more.

Orwell cleverly uses yet another story using an animal to convey is perspective on political and world topics.  I know he wrote Animal Farm, which had animals that represented certain world leaders and was meant to go against Stalin.

Commentary #2: Lindsey

            Your essay says that Hitchens has successfully used the three rhetorical appeals to persuade the audience that waterboarding is indeed torture.  First of all, the title is self-explanatory, but maybe make it a little more creative since I’m pretty sure we all know it is a rhetorical critique.  Also, something that caught me off guard was the way you started the essay.  The first paragraph of your essay is the summary of Hitchens’ article.  I feel like that should be after a short little introduction about torture and/or waterboarding to draw the readers’ attention to what the essay will be talking about.  Your thesis is rather straightforward.  You may want to add a little bit more detail to the sentence but not too much detail.  In the first body paragraph, you chose to tackle ethos first.  I like how you defined the appeal, but I don’t think the quoted definition from the book is necessary.  Instead of that quote, you could use those extra words to add more analysis to other quotes you used.  However, the end to this paragraph was rather confusing.  You say that Hitchens is knowledgeable on the subject then you give an opposing argument without evidence to support the first claim you make.  I actually think that this part does not need an opposing argument.  If you take that part out, then the paragraph will flow more smoothly.  As for the “showing fairness to other views” part, the second sentence is confusing to follow but I think I understand what you mean.  You also quoted Hitchens for that part, too.  I feel like the inclusion of that quote made the paragraph much stronger.  Moving on to the logos paragraph, it was rather cluttered and confusing.  For the first quote, it didn’t really make sense; if you include the quote from Lincoln and then quote Hitchens’s play on that quote, it will make more sense to the reader.  I feel like the strongest part of your logos argument was when you talk about the contract Hitchens had to sign before undergoing the process.  Next up was the pathos paragraph.  I feel like the pathos analysis could have been taken farther.  I really liked the last sentence of that paragraph though.  The last body paragraph talk about kairos.  I actually don’t believe you need to squeeze this in, unless of course you have a sufficient amount of analysis about this appeal.  It actually seemed like you were getting somewhere with the analysis but the paragraph suddenly ended.  Maybe you could take out this paragraph and add more analysis to the other paragraphs, or if you can think of more analysis for kairos, add it to the paragraph.  One of the things I think you should consider is whether or not the appeals were successful.  Yes, you talk about the appeals and analyze them, but you don’t seem to state whether it was successful or what the example did to the audience.  If you incorporate that, it should be enough to make the minimum word count and possibly more.

If you need anything else, just e-mail me.  I may be forgetting something, but this is the bulk of it.  Good luck! ^^

"A Small Place" Response

*Do Kincaid’s descriptions of imperialistic experiences represent all other imperialistic experiences of other countries?

Does Kincaid give a fair description of the relationship between tourist and native?

Why does Kincaid specifically point out the contrast between the brand new cars and the houses?

Kincaid begins this article describing the possible experience of a tourist in Antigua.  Then she describes the relationship between tourist and native.  She then goes on to describe why it is that the relationship is so strained.  Lo’ and behold, the reason is because of the British rule over Antigua.  Kincaid practically rants on about the negativity of being conquered and the Antiguan culture being molded how the British wanted it to be.  There seems to be no positive comment about these imperialistic experiences.

            However, I would like to bring up something different.  Though Kincaid’s description of imperialism on “uncivilized” countries seems like what is expected of a native of a conquered nation, are these experiences the same for other countries.  I myself am 100% Vietnamese.  My parents fled to the U.S. during the Vietnam War to escape the Viet Cong.  They have told many stories of their ancestors and what they experienced under the Chinese and the French.  Though most of the stories seem to mirror Kincaid’s, what my ancestors actually appreciate was the formation of our Vietnamese language.  Before being ruled over, we already had a spoken language but no written language.  The Chinese formed our accents and the French gave us a written language.  Kincaid seems to not give any positive remarks about the British, but I’m pretty sure there is some type of benefit—be it big or small—that the British have given Antiguans.  However, all in all I must agree with the experiences Kincaid has described of being conquered since your life and culture is in the hands of the imperialist powers.  Now, I am just comparing the experiences of Antigua to that of Vietnam.  It may be different for other countries but I can relate to those of Vietnam more since my ancestors have experienced it for themselves.  There was most likely more bad than good experiences, but nevertheless, those experiences have formed what the countries are today.

"Regarding the Pain of Others" Response

*What are the advantages and disadvantages of having the media catch the events firsthand on tape?

If photographers and journalists were not allowed to document the events, how would the public react to not being informed of ongoing events?

Is the censorship of the press enough or should there be more censorship?

We have grown up living in a world where information of events and such are readily available to us (in HD, too!).  My entire life I have not yet been affected by the media coverage of world events because no pictures that I remember seeing have been visually impacting.  However, the recent Boston Marathon bombing came as a shock to me.  At first, I only heard of the bombing and watched the news coverage of the event right when it happened.  I was glad I was able to see what was going on in the nation and not just read of it.  Then came the next day when pictures were sent in to the media.  I still remember clearly the picture of the man in the wheelchair with both of his legs blown off, bones sticking out, and flesh hanging being rushed off to the nearest paramedic.  That was actually the moment when I really felt fear.  After seeing that picture, it hit me that people are being seriously injured and I could be next.

            I guess one of the advantages of having the media coverage of events is that we can see exactly what is happening, whether it be good or bad.  The entire nation can then be united in those moments of watching what is happening; we can all see and understand what is going on around us.  I feel like this way we are more informed since we humans are visual learners, too.  However, there are the disadvantages to look at.  A disadvantage would be that the gruesomeness of the event (as in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing) would spread fear and panic much faster had the images not been shown on national television.  Those images remain in the minds of the population since the contents of the images are so shocking.  I feel like if the media has more control over what it shows to the public, then it will be safe to inform the public of what is happening.