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.

"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After" Response [Edited...marked the wrong question]

*Is the American government’s way of handling events like 9/11 good or bad?

Is Susan Sontag going too far by equating the U.S. Congress with the Soviet Union?

Is 9/11 similar or different to the events in Srebrenica and Rwanda?

To be honest, when all these world and political events happen, I don’t even know about the events unless someone tells me.  However, I know at least the basic information of the major events, such as 9/11.  Though I was only in 1st grade then, now I look back at documentaries and realize how much of an impact 9/11 had on America.  Why do I talk of my past?  Well, though I don’t remember with much clarity what exactly happened in my childhood, I know for sure my family and relatives (and friends and their families for that matter) did not show any signs of fear or distress; rather, everything was quite routine.  This shows how the government, like Sontag argues, “infantilize[s] the public” (1).  I am not sure if the people around me knew of 9/11 but they sure did not show it.  That may be a good thing about the government babying us: the entire population does not break out into mass chaos.  However, I do feel like the public needs to be informed of important matters and events like 9/11; the public needs to be prepared and more cautious in case something similar happens.  The public, if they know of the events, will be more aware of their surroundings and notify the authorities if they see anything suspicious and dangerous.  On the other hand, if event details are made known to the public, the population may go around being suspicious of those who are innocent and eventually things would build up into a blame game.  It seems like the best way to solve this is to carefully inform the public of everything happening so that the public will feel involved in the happenings of the nation yet will not cause mass chaos.  I honestly believe the government has done pretty well in the years I have been semi-active in the nation’s happenings (starting from freshman year in high school).  However, the government may have acted differently for 9/11, so I cannot say.

"Believe Me, It's Torture" Response

If there are other ways to get information out of prisoners, why use waterboarding?

How could waterboarding not be considered a form of torture?

What is the greatest torture factor in waterboarding?

This article by far is my favorite.  The way the author uses his personal experiences to draw the readers in to the topic was not expected.  By the time I finished the article, I wanted more.  Anyhow, back to the questions.

Throughout the years, there have been many types of torture and punishment.  Watching old Chinese series has showed me quite a few examples of old forms of torture, ranging from slowly breaking the fingers to making the inner thighs bruise and bleed.  Times have changed and new forms of torture have been created.  Waterboarding certainly seems like a form of torture, but there are some that believe it not to be torture.  Why would they think that (question 2)?

Compared to the other forms of torture I previously brought up, waterboarding does not cause one to bruise or bleed, something the human eye can see.  However, that is all I can think of that makes waterboarding different than other forms of torture.  Waterboarding still causes mental and physical distress.  Hitchens is victim to this effect of waterboarding; whenever he seems to lack oxygen, he begins to panic since he is reminded of his waterboarding experiment.  I do not see how waterboarding would not be considered torture.  It gives the prisoner the feeling of being drowned when he/she is not even immersed in water.  After the experience, it may cause one to be scared of water since the experience is traumatizing.  Though indeed waterboarding does not cause any visible damage to the person’s body, the aftereffects it has on the person will be imprinted in the person’s mind for a long time.

What really surprised me is the fact that our own Special Forces had to undergo these terrifying conditions.  We were basically torturing our own people.  Why?  I understand it is to prepare them for what will happen to them if they are caught in action.  I also understand that these people have agreed to this training knowing what they will be going through.  Indeed they will not have any visible damage done to them in the case of waterboarding, but these experiences will haunt them, if not physically then mentally.

Commentary #1--Lindsey O.

Your argument is against Nicholas Carr’s assertion that the Internet is ruining our brains and that there is almost no way to turn our brains back to normal.  You start off your argument with the opposing view, which is different than the classical argument structure.  I personally think it is a clever way to strengthen your argument since all your support is at the end of the essay, making it more memorable to the reader.  Your essay starts off with the opposing argument, which is stated very fairly.  You use a lot of evidence from Carr’s argument to support the opposing argument, which makes sense since the prompt does ask for us to consider the seriousness of the topic based on “the evidence presented in support of his argument”. 

Then you move on to beginning your (counter)argument with your personal experience with reading.  I find this a very nice transition between the two arguments since it gets the reader to related more with the topic.  The reason why I put “counter” in parentheses is because the counterargument is technically the argument since you put all of your evidence at this section.  What made your argument more solid is the study you cited on page 3 of your essay.  This evidence that there is actually a way to rewire our brains brings up something new to the table, something I wouldn’t think of off the top of my head.  It felt like this evidence is the one that made your argument much stronger in my opinion.  If you wish to, you may want to elaborate more on this supporting evidence to strengthen your argument even more.  Then there is the evidence you provide before the conclusion.  You may have been in a hurry to include another source, but it’s okay!  I actually feel like that evidence is pretty solid if you elaborate more on the quotes you provided.  You could talk more about how our brains are adapting to the changing world.  Possibly in the article, it may talk about how our brains are changing, and these changes may actually not be making us “stupid” but making us more efficient.

All in all, I do think your argument could convince a neutral audience.  Why do I think this?  Well, I myself am on the fence for this subject, though it may seem I am strongly on one side of the fence in my essay.  However, there is a small possibility that your argument may seem so strong because of the way you organized your essay.  You may want to check with the professor if it is okay to change the structure of your argument to not follow the classical argument structure.  Good luck! ^^

"Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid" Response

What exactly should women be fighting for freedom from--other people (like from Germany in the war) or their own social restraints?
 
Will thoughts and words alone be able to bring "peace" to the world?
 
Are men's hearts filled with "Hitlerism" or are they filled with the feeling of male superiority and dominance?

 
Virginia Woolf talks of freedom from the German bombing and freedom from war.  Then she talks about the possible freedom from societal restraints, especially the restraints on women (question 1).  For the women, she points out that other than "making arms, or clothes or food" (1) women are stuck at home to take care of the house and the family.  Women were supposed to partake in what was labled the "cult of domesticity", which was basically a society in which women enjoyed staying at home to take care of the house and familiy while the men were away at work making money to support the family.  However, as society rapidly progressed, women like Woolf developed the view of a gender-equal society where men and women could share their views, where everyone's voice is heard.  Therefore, besides "making arms, or clothes of food", Woolf argues that women too can fight, not with firearms, but with the mind.  Woolf believes if women were able to voice their opinions and ideas, maybe the world would not be in fear of war day and night.  In my opinion, indeed women should fight for social equality since the world has progressed to the point where if all voices weren't heard, society might blow up in chaos--the women might hold a rebellion and there would be social unrest.  Maybe if women were able to voice their opinions at that time, the seeds of war would not have been planted and many lives saved.  However, during these critical times, I think it best if social problems were delayed until after the war since countries should unite to solve the problem faster and not be distracted by other problems.  Possibly if women had gained social equality before the war, countries would have had freedom from other countries penetrating their boundaries.  Nowadays, I feel like women--and everybody else--should be fighting for freedoms that would benefit the entire population, not just one particular group.