Commentary #3

           

The author’s paper is about “enhanced interrogation” or torture. Her thesis clearly states what her two criteria are going to be talked about. She is first stating that you get false information obtained by torture which is valid and very arguable point that even Hitchen’s himself argued. Her second criteria point is that in the United States judicial system and the Geneva Convention laws say it is illegal and therefore it should not be used. Her criteria in the essay are relevant to the thesis statement, which is a very strong thesis. I think that people on the other side of her argument would accept the criteria presented because these points are the main issues that come up when arguing about “enhanced interrogation” or torture. She needs to acknowledge the fact military does not follow the same rules as regular United States citizens follow. Acknowledging this point will give more validity to her argument against “enhanced interrogation” or torture I think. She evenly weighs both sides of the argument evenly. Maybe add a little more to the refutation side. Give a better case for the opposite view point. But not much needs to add to that. She follows her criteria that was presented in her article and does not stray away from her criteria at all. All of her quotes are relevant to the criteria and give strong support to her paragraphs and points that she is talking about. The quotes are backed up with strong support following the quote. She cherry picked a little, but that is a given when giving an argument. I am a skeptic and to her point of view on this subject and I accepted that argument she made. It was strong and most importantly clear. Some of her examples are a little to specific, but they are really good examples. The examples presented might be rare cases so that could be a fault. I thought the essay was well written, structurally sound, and very clear and a lot of strong support to back up her criteria.   

Vivisection

Questions

1. Should certain animals be excluded from experimentation?
2. Will the current experimentation on animals lead to experimentation on humans and will it be ok?
3. Do animals experience pain?

Response

The question I will be answering is, will the current experimentation on animals lead to experimentation on humans and will it be OK? I did not know much about vivisection before this reading by C.S. Lewis and a little research after I read chapter. Thinking about this question I first thought to history and of the Nazi doctors and their experimentation on humans. This was obviously not a war crime and no one thought what they did was OK. Fast forwarding a little, the American government experimented with the drug LSD on troops to see what affect it had on the soldiers and see if it made them super soldiers. This is obviously not the same as vivisection on animals, but it does bring up the alarming fact humans are willing to try experiments on other humans. When performing on animals they are doing live operations to see how the body works of the certain animal. Down the road I think the human race would perform it on other humans. I think that science will eventually do it because they are always trying to push the boundaries on our knowledge. One reason I think they would use to support it is that the only way to truly understand the anatomy of the human body is to experiment on an actual human. They will probably say it is for the greater benefit of the human race. I wonder how they would choose the people to experiment on. I would assume they would choose prisoners that are on death row. So now it could be another form of execution. But this does not make it OK. This is something that could be an excuse for genocide. There is no real way they could ever justify the experimentation of humans because they can still not justify the experimentation on animals.      

Commentary #2

           

Your essay overall is very solid. You need a little more description to some of the paragraphs. But mainly you need to be clearer on what you are actually talking about. When first reading it got confused on where I was in the structure of the essay. Your thesis is fantastic and clear but it needs to be introduced earlier than you did. The introduction paragraph is good really hooks you into the reading and makes it a very easy on the brain to start off. You do address all three appeals in the paragraphs. Like I said I was confused on what I was actually reading about. I would think I’m reading about ethos but actually it was a paragraph about pathos. And this all can be fixed with good structuring of the paper. Could add a little more to the body paragraphs, but it is not a necessity. Should add I think one more passage from the actual essay itself. I think it would help tie the paper together a lot better. The topic sentences are not all clear in your paper. I think this is because some of your paragraphs could be combined together. This would eliminate some of the confusion as well when it comes to the structure of the paper. The topic sentences (that are actual topic sentences) are good and do give a clear layout on what you are about to discuss in that paragraph. Your paragraph that deals with the appeal to logos is very strong and gives good support and probably the best support to your thesis. Your example is specific and actual show the reader what logos looks like. Not much to do for the logos paragraph. The pathos paragraph is also really well put together, clear, and strong. This paragraph along with logos just does a really nice job on what specific examples Hitchens uses to get his point across via pathos. Where I think you fall short is ethos. The ethos section was not a very clear section to read and was kind of confused when reading it. I think with just a little tweaking to the ethos paragraph it could be fantastic. Overall your essay is a really good read and argument. 

"Shooting an Elephant"

Questions

1. How much should someone else’s perception of us influence our actions?
2. Are we more likely to not act like ourselves when others are watching?
3. Is imperialism good or bad for the country being occupied?

Response

            The question I will be answering is, is imperialism good or bad for the country being occupied? Imperialism has always been apart of world history. All the great empire of history has practiced imperialism. The British were the biggest empire for the greater part of the 20^th century. They still might be today. The essay takes place in Burma which has been occupied by the British. The Burmese do not seem too fond of the British that are there. I think that is true for all countries that are being occupied by an outside power. Sure these powers, whether it is the United States of America, Great Britain, or the Roman Empire, are trying to help the people of this country by giving them stability economically or some other way. But these powers that come to occupy these end up not doing this. Yes in the short term they might, but in the long run they start to assimilate the people into their culture and usually come there to get some type of resource that is specially grown in that country. Imperialism brings a lot of hate towards the country that has occupied, which usually causes violence and death. The people being occupied are forced to learn the ideals of the outside country. These ideals are life styles, food, language, traditions, and pop culture. Even down in Louisiana there is a heavy French influence from when they occupied that territory. There are still people down there that can not speak English and only speak French. Sure there are some benefits of imperialism, but in the long run it only leaves a bad taste and usually a lot of hatred in the peoples’ mouths.      

Questions

1. Should war photography be allowed?
2. Is it OK to take photos of the dead?
3. Can the advance of technology ruin the quality and authenticity?

Response

This is the question I will be answering is, should war photography be allowed? I do not think photography or any type of video taping should be allowed either. Yes there have been some very historic war photos that inspire our troops and the American citizens. That is a very selective case. The reason I do not think photography should be allowed is because the general public does not want to actually see the gruesome and horrific pictures of what war is all about. The photography of Vietnam got the response it wanted and that was a horrible backlash towards the courageous men and women of our country fighting in an extremely foreign country. This is sad and sickening to me because of the way the American people blatantly disrespect the troops coming back from deployment. It is crazy how much of a difference photography and video made a difference from World War 2 to the Vietnam War. With a major support and backing for entering war after Pearl Harbor and continued support till the end of  World War 2. While it was the exact opposite for the Vietnam War where the only difference was the media was allowed to cover the war. Even in recent wars troops are getting backlash for stuff they are doing to the enemy troops because of photos leaking. It is also hard to watch news anchors that sit in a chair and say how wrong these acts are and the should go to prison, but they have never gone through boot camp, never had someone fire automatic weapons at them, or even been near the war. War is not something for the general public to see and that’s why I do not think photography should be allowed. If people want to see what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan then sign up and become an enlisted soldier, then and only then can you see what war is all about.    

Questions

1. Is the American government to blame for the 9/11 attacks?
2. Why did the terrorist group target America?
3. Was going to war after the attacks the correct decision by U.S. Congress?

Response

In Sontag’s article she raises the question, is the American government to blame for the 9/11 attacks? I think this is a legitimate question to try and figure out what the reasoning is behind this attack to the World Trade Centers. The constant bombing of the Middle East and some type of American military presence in those countries is a reason for hatred for the United States of America. So there is the spark to the fire. Another reason is that America is trying to world police every nation. Which most countries do not like and would rather be left alone to function the way they have been for thousands of years. This is one thought some people would have on why the terrorist group would have planned this attack and executed it as well. There is also the conspiracy theorist point of view which is that the United States government actually planned this attack and framed Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. I have talked a lot about this to my friends and watched hours of documentaries about this subject that all say the government was to blame for these attacks. They say their reasoning behind these attacks were to be able to invade the Middle East to gain control of the oil there. I don’t think this is a good explanation for why the American Government is to blame, but I do feel that the first idea about why America is to be blamed has a strong case. I do not think these attacks were random I feel like it was brought upon America due to years of hatred because of our actions in their countries. To answer the question I feel that America is to blame ourselves for the attacks.     

Commentary #1 Melissa Montoya

The essay is well put together and gives a good argument. The conformation is very clear and organized. It follows the structure well and the thesis is strong and clear as well. She supports her thesis well. Each paragraph always ties back to the thesis. None of her arguments are irrelevant. Each reason is educated with strong support backing it up. Even if she used a personal example she had good reasoning on why she provided the example. I think her argument would win over a skeptical or neutral audience. She provides clear and relevant examples that are not over the top that only maybe a tiny portion of a population can relate to. Every example is relatable and they can probably relate it back to there own personal experience about the view she is arguing. She does show a fair look onto the opposition view and sort of agrees with their argument.  But this does not mean she agrees with them completely. She provides good details and evidence on why the opposition argument is not a very high quality point of view. She does not attack the opposition like Camille Pagila attacks Lady Gaga which is much more appealing. I think that the audience would likely side with her because of the great detail she provides with each example she uses. She also gives a good representation of the opposition’s point of view which makes her refuting argument very credible. I feel that she could have provided some more statistics about online dating and some more quotes about that view. I thought it was a very well laid out paper she follows the structure to a tee and this makes for no confusion on what she is talking about. Her counter arguments I felt could also be a bit more in depth as well with some statistic or something along those lines. It is very minor things Melissa needs to fix, but if she does this will be an excellent paper.  

Questions

1. Can water boarding be an efficient way of extracting information?
2. Are there better methods of torture for extracting information or is torture not a good way to get information?
3. Should torture be outlawed from American military?

Response

            Should torture be outlawed from American military? In Christopher Hitchens article, “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, he walks us through his experience of being water boarded. At the end of his article he quotes a man that has been through it all in the military and he claims that America can not do it both ways either you torture and get tortured or you don’t tortured and not be tortured. But I feel that torturing enemies to extract information or to just torture them is ok. I feel this way because it is the way humans have done for a very long time. People throughout history have been tortured whether that is stoning or any public humiliation, slavery, or more modern techniques like the Chinese water torture. Torturing is not humane, but in the case of military or government issues if torturing is the best and most efficient way of getting the information they need for their peoples safety then by all means. A good example of torturing benefiting American Special Forces is from the movie Zero Dark Thirty they water board and do all kinds of techniques to this man they have captured. He does not budge, but they bluff him and he ends up telling them the information they need that eventually leads to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. This movie was based off the actual events leading of Osama Bin Laden’s death. This example shows the how beneficial torture can be. My dad who served in the military told me about some of the ways they would extract information and he said some of that information saved thousands of lives and that was thanks to torture. I do not think torturing should be outlawed. 

Questions

• Is there a difference between hate crimes and non-hate crimes?
• Is hate a crime?
• Why do people hate other people?

Response

            Is there a difference between hate crimes and non-hate crimes? In “What’s So Bad About Hate?” by Andrew Sullivan, he talks about this very topic bringing up an interesting point about hate crimes and how it is not a defined legal term, and is to broad of a term. I was thinking that there is no real difference because lets say for example some kills a cat well you could very well argue that that crime committed was a hate crime because they way the killing was done was to brutal not to have hatred as one their motives. Hate crimes can literally be any crime, do to the fact that you can literally hate anything for any reason so that means committing insurance fraud or selling pot could be considered a hate crime. This is because you could hate the name of the insurance company or the reason you sell pot is because you hate the government laws against cannabis. The point I’m making is there is a limitless amount of possibilities due to hate crimes. So instead of hate crimes they should rename it to crimes and if there is evidence that someone is attacking a black person because of their skin color then charge them for gang affiliation like in the case of James Byrd Jr. You can’t charge someone for hate because you truly can not know if they truly hate someone and there is no evidence that can support your claim unless you can somehow read minds. So to answer the question is there a difference between hate crimes and non-hate crimes I say no. They are both crimes one is just committed on a minority so all of a sudden it turns into a hate crime. Hate crimes are unjust and should be rid of in our judicial system.        

Questions

• Is Lady Gaga’s weird image manufactured or is it a self-made image?
• Can Lady Gaga be the new sex symbol in pop music?
• Could Gaga change her image as her career progresses like The Beatles?

Response

            In Camille Pagila’s article, “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex”, she claims that Lady Gaga is destroying the sex revolution that was started about one hundred years ago, and that Gaga’s image might be all manufactured. I think that Gaga’s image is all faked based on the facts the Camille Pagila gave us about her childhood. Gaga said that she was an outcast in school and was underprivileged, but really she went to the same private school that Paris and Nicky Hilton attended (they are defiantly the opposite of underprivileged). She was also very gifted in music being a very good piano player another reason she should not be an outcast in school. Lady Gaga reminds me a lot of a rapper named Rick “The Boss” Ross, whose career has been manufactured completely. In his songs he talks about himself being this bad ass gangster who dealt a lot of cocaine and called all the shots. Then it comes out that he stole all of his stories from prisoners he used to talk to in prison while he was a correctional officer. I feel that Lady Gaga has maybe not stole her image from a specific person, but rather her image was made up by either her producers or herself to appeal to a much wider audience. I think she realized that Americans love an underdog story and that is exactly what her story has is all about. I think she might be a little weird but I don’t think she is as over the top weird as she dresses and her whole attitude behind her weirdness. Especially her comments about sex saying that she does not do it and stuff like that, but yet in her songs she talks about some pretty vulgar stuff that you would expect from Lil’ Wayne not Lady Gaga. 

Google

1. Questions

·       Does the internet want to make the person read more or less?

·       How is a person’s concentration affected from the internet?

·       How have writing styles of author’s change due to the internet?

2. Response

            In the article “Is Google making Us Stupid?” by Nicholas Carr, he suggests that Google has made us not concentrate as much as we used to do and we want things more direct and shorter; and because of this author’s style of writing has changed a lot. Authors, before the internet, used a lot of big words and there style of writing was very descriptive and usually had some social message behind the story. For example, Frankenstein had a lot of social commentary about people trying to play God and that maybe we should not judge someone on the way they look and actually get to know the person. Pre-internet writers also were much wordier when writing using very difficult words to understand. Now fast forward to the internet era authors who are not as difficult reads like their predecessors. To keep the example in the same genre I will compare Frankenstein to the Twilight series which are both about monsters. Twilight from what I have red of it has no social commentary and is mainly just about a girl that fits in with her peers and falls in love with a good looking guy who just happens to be a vampire. The monster in Frankenstein is the exact opposite of Bella. This shows that writing seems to be watered down and is know more about what is trending in society, especially on social media and the internet. Unlike Mary Shelley’s book which has a lot of substance about her time with people not accepting others because they look different to the normal looking. Authors’ styles have changed for the better. Even though there might not be substance behind the stories today at least they are much more interesting to read and I have defiantly seen more teenagers reading books because either they want to fit in with everyone else because it is the cool and trending or it just catches their attention a lot more than some pre-internet book does.