Essay #4 Commentary Essay by Haley Montes

Author: Haley Montes

Commentary for Essay #4

             After reading this essay, the first thought that came to my mind was “wow this is awesome.” Considering that this is just a rough draft, of course there is some room for improvement. But generally speaking, this essay is very convincing – yes America overuses the skill of photoshop programs and thus influences the media. I agree with the author that such usage of making models (who are already thinner than most females who are not models) look even thinner would have psychological impact on young teenage girls and possibly even adult women too. I really liked how the author of this essay used the example of Israel for not only to support her argument, but also for showing an alternative pathway for America. Yes, I am convinced by her writing that if we can follow Israel’s path, America would be free of this problem.

             I liked the author’s choice of words, such as “emaciated,” “widespread epidemic,” “unrealistic standards,” “constantly pressured,” and much more. Because of the usage of such impacting words, it drew my attention right away. But as mentioned, I see some rooms where this essay can be improved. For example, towards the end of the first paragraph, there is a phrase that says: “In an article written about photoshop and eating disorders states …” Here, mentioning the actual article title would be more convincing. In the next paragraph, in the phrase where it says “Eva and Seth Matlin teamed up with the AMA to produce…” you should identify what AMA stands for, just to clarify it for the readers. Just to mention a suggestion from me, I do not

think it is a bad idea to identify the authors of your source and what they do. The authors of your source can be a professor at a university, a famous journalist, and so much more, which would add credibility to your argument, thus further being able to persuade your readers that what you are arguing for is right. Besides such aspects, this is a very good essay.  

Essay#4 Proposal Argument

Beomseok Kim

Professor Brown

English 1B

7th May 2013

“Waterboarding”- A Torturing Method that Must be Abolished

Abolishment of waterboarding came to be a need for America. Although some people would argue that waterboarding is a method that is used to protect national security, we must take into consider that the use of waterboarding is not effective on all cases. From an article called “American Torture: The Price Paid, and the Lesson Learned” by by Lisa Hajjar, there is a mention that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM), referred to as the “mastermind of 9/11,” “was subjected to waterboarding 183 times along with the full panoply of tactics in the CIA’s repertoire. According to […] officials with direct knowledge of his interrogations, most of what he said under torture was lies, and he gave up no actionable intelligence.” As noted, the waterboarding process is where the victim gets literally drowned, slowly bringing the fear of death over the victim. And the point of this method is that before the victim actually dies, he or she gives up the information that the interrogators are looking for. But KSM has gone through this process 183 times, meaning he was faced with life-or-death situation at least 183 times because of waterboarding, and yet still gave nothing but lies. This proves that waterboarding is not effective enough to break the mastermind of 9/11, and thus meaning that all that time and work spent with 183 times of waterboarding was a waste.

This leads to another reason why waterboarding should be abolished: including

waterboarding, all torturing methods ultimately deprives America of its resources. Investigative journalist David Rose commented that through his interview with multiple counterterrorism officials from different countries, “failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale.” Those who are in support of waterboarding would primarily argue about the national security aspect, that we need the knowledge of the victims of waterboarding to protect our country. But, what is the point of waterboarding if it is useless? Is it really worthy to keep this method despite the fact that it generates no significant knowledge that would benefit this country that we live in? We lose the whole purpose of “finding out the knowledge that the only those who suffer through waterboarding know through torture” if it produces no solid knowledge. Not only that, the scenario worsens when the one suffering through waterboarding “fesses up” lies. Then, believing that such information is true, American then proceeds to use the appropriate resources in the effort to solve a problem, let’s say relocating the police force depending on the words who blurted out a lie, which would lead to tremendous loss money in various ways. Waterboarding is not benefiting America at all: people who fight to abolish waterboarding says so and also the President of the United States of America also agrees to this point.

The president of America must be elected by the people. That is called democracy, and that is the country that we live in today. This means that the current president of America, President Barrack Obama, was elected by none other than the citizens of this country. It means that we as majority, as one country, selected President Obama to lead this nation and to be our representative. His decision, along with the government’s decision, is ultimately America’s decision as one. In regards to waterboarding in particular, President Obama labeled the Republicans, who were in support of waterboarding process, as “wrong.” In addition to that, he

Said “Waterboarding is torture, it is contrary to America’s traditions, it’s contrary to our ideals, and it’s not how we operate.” The leader of this country, whom we have elected with our own votes, declared that waterboarding is a torture. He even adds that it goes against our ideals, which is true – this country was built upon the idea of freedom for the individual. Our Founding Fathers fought so hard for it, and we have it now: individual rights and freedom. As President Obama mentioned, waterboarding goes against the ideals of this country. It goes against the identity of America – freedom. Now I must ask again – do we really need waterboarding? Or can we still live happily without it?

Not only the moment of drowning that the victims must face, the fear is what they must really fight against for their whole entire lives. According to the newspaper article called “Waterboarding: A Mental and Physical Trauma” by Bryan Walsh indicates that “A 2007 study in the International Review of the Red Cross found that "the acute suffering produced during the immediate infliction of the submarino (waterboarding) is superseded by the often unbearable fear of repeating the experience. In the aftermath, it may lead to horrific memories that persist in the form of recurrent drowning nightmares.'" Just to imagine what the victims have to go through even after the torture has been finished is just unthinkable. Yes, going through waterboarding is horrible itself, but it the actual torture does not end there. It haunts you like nightmares for many years to come. Interrogation officials torture people for the purposes of finding our information, and the victims are no longer in use afterwards. Is it fair that victims have to suffer for life where interrogation officials get off so quickly? If Americans fought for equality and human rights, does not it seem wrong that the victims have to go through the waterboarding process mentally for many years to come? The solution is there, it is just difficult for some people to take a closer look at it: we must abolish waterboarding for good.

Despite the opposition that this problem might face, it is without a doubt that waterboarding must be abolished. It not only makes the victim suffer from the event for many years to come, but our leader President Barrack Obama also wants waterboarding abolished. Not only that, but also waterboarding does not work all the time, and it is costing the country its resources which can be saved for a better use. If people would be able to look at it deeply enough, beyond the boundary of national security and protection against terrorists, they would be able to see that waterboarding is not beneficial at all for this country. What can we do to benefit the country that we live in? Abolishing the waterboarding process once and for all.

 

Work Cited

Bruce, Mary. "Obama Says GOP Candidates Are Wrong, Waterboarding Is ‘Torture’."                                  ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.

Bryan, Walsh. “A Mental and Physical Trauma.” Time U.S., n.d Web.

Hajjar, Lisa. "American Torture: The Price Paid, the Lessons Learned." Middle East                                       Research and I   nformation Project (MERIP), n.d. Web.

Blog Entry: 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person

1.     Is better person who is always helpful to others?

2.     If someone is not helpful to others, is he or she a bad person?

3.     Why is important to be a better person?

In 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person written by David Wong he refers to how we can be better people and to each other in this world.  However it’s his contention that this can only be made possible if all of us finally realize and ultimately choose to embrace the harsh realities in life.

One of the biggest assertions by Wong is that that people value others’ worth based only on what they can get from each other and nothing more.  In other words no matter how selfless, polite and good natured someone is all of these traits do not matter in the end if that person has an inability to fulfill any needs.  The reason why this is so is because society, as a whole, is a systematic process designed purely to appease people’s needs.  Everyone is in need of shelter, food, water, clothing, energy, and so on and so forth.  Nobody is exempt from this and these needs are not earned by merely being a good person in life.  One must learn how to fulfill needs or that person will not survive because, in reality, handouts do not run society.  This was one of the six harsh truths by Wong and one that’s not entirely without merit because, in a superficial sense, this is exactly what society is: an environment built on need and fulfilling it.

             Another topic Wong touched on was the connection between relationships and money but in a very unique and different perspective.  He claims that most guys who get rejected by women mostly resort to the notion that it’s due to their lack of money from a meager job.  This, in turn, empowers the man to write off the woman as shallow and superficial.  Wong, on the other hand, argues that this is an easy “cop out” answer and, in actuality, that this is the byproduct of an aura consisting of an inferiority complex by the man.  Most men project the image of being a “nice guy” but this is commonplace.  What makes some men differ from others is the fact that they can add on to that and also demonstrate those added values without merely speaking and boasting about them.  Instead of walking the walk the also talk the talk so to speak.  Therefore since the ability to produce copious amounts of money is challenging, a realistic alternative is to produce something else that benefits other people.  In the context of relationships a poor man who has a unique valuable trait that he can demonstrate has an equally good chance of getting a woman compared to a rich man who has no other valuable traits.

                  All in all David Wong’s 6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person was an interesting, albeit subjective, read from someone confident enough to not back down from his assertions and claims.  These self proclaimed harsh truths may not be definitive in real life, however, none of them were without merit as stated.

Reflection on Essay #3

Reflection on Essay #3

             The changes I made from my rough draft to my final draft are primarily based on the professor’s comments. After reading the professor’s comments, I realized that I had approached my topic in the wrong way, and in a way I did not understood my topic fully. With the professor’s comments, I found a way to fix my essay. I ended up fixing a lot from my original rough draft. Because my understanding of the topic was off, I had to do a whole new research to fully understand how I needed to approach the topic. Thus, I changed my ideas and arguments slightly throughout the essay. Big changes were made in a way that if my paragraphs were invalid, I deleted it, and naturally wrote another one to replace the paragraph that I deleted. Besides that I fixed minor errors like grammar, punctuation, and spelling.  Lastly, I changed the title of my essay. 

Essay #3 Final

Waterboarding: Unethical and Torturing Interrogation Process 

             The Bill of Rights of this country grants basic rights to all of its citizens that even the government cannot interfere with. Because America is considered as a “free country” with a “chance for a better future” for its citizens, people around the world commonly associate America with freedom and rights. Likewise, Americans live everyday expecting to be treated fairly and equally. And because of this expectation, we expect our government to treat everybody equally and fairly. But the important question arises at this point: does our government really treat all of its citizens fairly? Of course, the limitations and the definition of “freedom” and “rights” becomes vague in situations regarding criminals. But does that give America the right to torture others under the branch of “intensive interrogation?” One of the widely-known interrogation methods called “waterboarding,” raises unavoidable ethical issues regarding human rights: waterboarding ultimately jeopardizes the victim’s life and is highly likely to scar them for the rest of their lives either physically or psychologically.

Simply put, the process known as “waterboarding” is a torturing method. Although American government officials may define waterboarding as “interrogation method,” all it really is a person horribly torturing another person to achieve a set goal (which is this case would be obtaining information). As it is obvious that our legislative branch of government cannot impose execution as a means of punishment for any given crime, the same concept applies here. Although criminals may impose a means of threat (depending on the seriousness of the crime), they are still humans and should be treated like one. The Amendment V of the Bill of Rights states: “No person shall […] be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law,” which gives the rights to the accused to a fair trial before being captured and deprived of his/her freedom. The real problem in this case is human rights- which refer to the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are given, one of them being equality before the law. Waterboarding is unethical in every aspect; the method itself is inhumane, and ultimately affects the victims physically and psychologically, may even result in death.

             The author and journalist Christopher Hitchens vividly sends the message of the how dangerous waterboarding can be to its victims through his article called “Believe Me, It’s Tourture” in the Vanity Fair magazine August 2008 issue. Christopher Hitchens, who volunteers to experience what waterboarding is really like, vividly explains to he’s readers the true seriousness of this process. He states of an agreement that he had to sign, which says “Waterboarding is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional, psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.” The current situation of Hitchens at this point is that he is volunteering to experience this- everything can be stopped at his will. But despite that, Hitchens had to sign to this agreement saying he can be injured despite the precautions. This would naturally make people think how horrible it would have been for the actual people who had to face this torture method: during the actual process, as far as the victims know, the torture is continuous and everlasting.

             In the peer-reviewed book called The Iraq Papers by John Ehrenberg, J. Patrice

McSherry, Jose Ramon Sanchez, Caroleen Marji Sayej, it gives a very accurate definition of waterboarding: “is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration – usually the person goes into hysterics on the board.” Also, the book goes onto adding that “When [waterboarding is] done right, it is controlled death.” When it is done right, it is a controlled death – the words painting a picture inside the readers’ head – literally controlling someone’s life. The phrase even gives a sense that the controller is toying with the victim’s life, which adds to the whole process being extremely unethical, but can you imagine such things being forced upon people? Despite them being criminals, they still are someone’s son or daughter, someone’s husband or wife, someone’s father or mother, and someone’s friend. What if this person is your friend, or a neighbor, or even a family member? Yes, suffering the consequences is crucial for criminals. But do they deserve to be deprived of the natural rights given to them as humans? Even their life? Upon faced with this question, anybody would agree that waterboarding raises ethical problems that should have an effect on all of us as humans.  

Considering that waterboarding is an interrogation process and thus are being used for criminals only, some people may claim that this has nothing to do with ethical issues. Not only that, some may even say that as criminals, they have lost every right people get as humans from the moment that they commit a crime. But if you are literally being drowned for confession, who would not give up?  Everybody wants to live their lives fully - nobody wants to get theirs cut short. Fulfilling a goal by threatening them with their lives – that is what we call using excessive and maybe even deadly force upon the victim for information. Using this kind of force to obtain evidence is not allowed in American courts – why should using deadly force be allowed in the use of waterboarding?

Waterboaring is a torturing method; there is no doubt about that. But the ethical problem comes to surface when we take a look at the impact of what waterboarding can do on its victims-scarring them physically and psychologically. Despite the fact that people would have different perspectives about waterboarding (human rights versus method of punishment for criminals), but it is just too obvious that waterboarding is a harsh torturing technique. The evidence of that would be the fact that “President Obama banned waterboarding and other abusive technique after he took office in 2009” (LA Times). The importance of human rights outweighs every other aspect of interrogation - the president of this country has shown t

Works Cited

Dilanian. Ken. “Candidate to Lead CIA Clandestine Service Stirs Controversy.” Los                                     Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. 27. Mar. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2013

Ehrenberg. John. The Iraq Papers. Oxford: Oxford UP. 2010. Print

Hitchens. Christopher. “Believe Me, It’s Torture.” Vanity Fair. N.P.n.d Web. 26 Mar.                                    2013.

"Bill of Rights Transcript Text." Bill of Rights Transcript Text. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr.                                   2013.

Stepping off Maslow's Escalator

1. What makes people feel unsafe?

2. What can people do that will satisfy their lives?

3. Can happiness come from normal days?

In Maslow’s The Hierarchy of Needs there are seven needs of human beings which include biological & psychological, safety, belongingness & love, esteem, cognitive, aesthetic and self-actualization needs.  These are all important to humans and if even one of these are lacking then people might feel unhappy or unsafe.  That doesn’t mean all of these needs are equal to one another, however, because there exists a hierarchy according to Maslow.

At the top of this rests the need of self-actualization which means people will feel safe depending on how they regard their situation.  People usually feel they are in trouble by the threat of starvation or anything that’s dangerous to them.  However people who still have enough assets and property without any threat from other physical or psychological things could not satisfy their life completely because they might have a lack of other need(s).

For example there are many people in developing countries who, despite suffering from starvation, are able to fulfill other needs better than those in wealthy countries based upon the fact that they can better appreciate the smaller things in life better.

Ever since I was young I always thought about myself and what it means to be successful. Some people choose to define success in terms of being rich and having a high social class status.  While I may agree that this could be true to a certain degree as I would enjoy having better properties such as a car or a house and to do very well in school in order to become successful in business, however, I still do not believe my life and the measure of success is entirely dependant upon wealth.  I don’t think that my life is not successful merely due to the fact that I don’t have a lot of money.  I enjoy life so that I don’t feel unsafe about my current status and constantly worry about the future.  For right now I am trying to be satisfied with what I have instead of desiring better and more property as it’ll become a vicious, never ending cycle.  Our main purpose in life as human beings is to be happy, however, people lost their satisfaction of life by working too hard to try to attain it and ultimately lose sight of their original goal. 

Ethical Argument Peer Review

Essay #3: Ethical Argument Peer Review

Essay Written By: Shelby Marsh

Essay Title: “The Unresolved Debate: Gay Marriage Legal or Not?”

1.      Thesis: Because the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, it is immoral for us to legalize gay marriage because it will affect our future and open up options for things like polygamy and incest. Overall, when an institution is made flexible the institution is weakened.

a.      Criteria: “Procreation is very vital to our society because we need to keep the planet populated. It is very evident that same sex marriages would not be used for procreation because it is impossible for a man and man or woman and woman to procreate.”

“[…] allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification.”

Match: “We all know the story of Adam and Eve, and God created two separate genders for a reason.”

(New Living Translation, Genesis 2:24)

b.      Criteria: “Gay marriage being legalized would devalue the very concept of marriage because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman and any other variation simply makes marriage seem cheap and meaningless.”

“If gay marriage is legalized all over the United States, it could cause people to lose their reverence for marriage itself and even fewer people will get married.”

Match: “Statistics show that marriage benefits society.”

“Men benefit from marriage because single men have almost six times the probability of being incarcerated as married men and married men tend to be more

involved in the community and service organizations.”

“Women benefit from marriage because wives are 30 percent more likely to have better health than single women of the same age.”

c.       Criteria: “If gay marriage were legalized, it would mean that children are legally deprived from birth of a mother or a father.”

“To take a child away from having a male and female role model is wrong and would affect that child for the rest of their lives.”

Match: “A 2012 study by the University of Texas found that children raised by at least one gay or lesbian parent had more problems later in life than children raised by heterosexual couples, including poorer mental and physical health, poorer relationships and lower income.”

d.      Criteria: CONCLUSION (No more criteria-match paragraph)

Match:

2.      Do all of the author’s criteria/match arguments provide compelling support for his/her thesis? An argument in the body of the paper may look reasonable in isolation-but is it actually relevant to the author’s thesis?

-          I think the author has all the necessary basic ideas behind the main point of this essay. But the problem that I found that was present in all paragraphs (to some aspect at the least) is that the evidences do not really connect to the thesis. The biggest unrelated evidence occurs in the third paragraph. All the evidences present in this paragraph seems to act as an answer to the question “Is getting married better or staying single better?” Rather than to propose an ethical argument of straight marriage versus gay marriage.

3.      Will a skeptical accept this writer’s criteria? Identify any areas where the writer needs to argue for his or her criteria explicitly.

-          As mentioned above, I think the writer should spend the most time editing and revising the third paragraph, because as of now it does not sound too convincing that gay marriage should not be legal. Overall, the connection between the thesis and the evidences are present, but it can be made much stronger then right now.

4.      Will a skeptical accept the general weighting of this writer’s criteria? For example, a writer who weighs the principle of social welfare more heavily than the principle of keeping within the federal budget may have difficulty persuading an economically conservative reader. Here, the writer would need to defend the weighting of his/her criteria in terms would appeal to this audience.

-          Although I do think the criteria for B sounds aggressive (through the usage of the words “cheap” and “meaningless”), I definitely think criteria A and criteria C is very strong and convincing.

5.      Will a skeptic accept the writer’s criteria but reject his or her match argument(s)? Might readers challenge the writer by showing he/she has cherry picked examples or evidence? Will they provide counterexamples or counterevidence? Identify matches that the reader can reasonably challenge.

-          The evidences shown in this essay suggest that the author might have “cherry picked” some evidences. For example, because it is a fact that this country was built upon Christianity and the teachings of the Bible, using Bible as supporting evidence is a very good start. But stating that gay couple’s children are inferior in every aspect to straight couple’s children seems a little cherry picked evidences to me; it is likely that there is at least one child of gay couple that is succeeding than other usual children of straight couple. Once again to emphasize, the third paragraph’s evidences do not connect the argument to the thesis, so those should be revised. 

Vivisection

1. Should we let people die or save another human being's life by vivisection?

2. What is the major reason of people who advocate anti-vivisectionists?

3. Has vivisection been stopped for unethical reasons?

In the essay by C.S. Lewis entitled, "Vivisection", he disagreed with people who regard animals not as human beings due to their alleged lack of a soul and especially with those who utilized that reasoning to justify the abuse, experimentation or exploitation of animals. Treat other living things, especially animals, to a standard that's no less or higher than that of human beings is what was being preached. But, it should be noted, that Lewis was simply not against the abuse of animals just for the sake of it. The essence of his message was that, at the end of the day, everyone, including animals, has a soul and authority of freedom. Animals are free to do as they please much like human beings and if we were to abuse these animals in any way then that would only serve as a precedent leading up to doing the same to our fellow man, or human beings, as an extremist view.

While I was reading Lewis' article I was reminded of a sensitive, personal issue to me. I own two cats and treat them as my family. The same sentiments can be shared by many other people who are also pet owners of animals. However whether or not the human owner and animal pet are close does not necessarily matter. Animals simply need to be treated and with care under our watch, so to speak, but not with total equality to us.

Essay#2 Ethical Argument

Beomseok Kim

Professor Brown

English 1B

04 April, 2013

Is Waterboarding Benefitting the People or Violating their Rights?

             Anybody who sets foot inside the United States of America is guaranteed several rights represented in our Bill of Rights. Because America is considered as a “free country” with a “chance for a better future” for its citizens, people around the world commonly associate America with freedom and rights. Likewise, Americans live everyday expecting to be treated fairly and equally. And because of this expectation, American citizens also treat other people with respect; or at least we expect our citizens to treat others with respect. But the real question is, do we? Do every single Americans treat others with respect and treat them with their appropriate rights? Of course, the limitations and the definition of “freedom” and “rights” becomes thin in situations regarding criminals. But does that give America the right to torture others under the branch of “intensive interrogation?”

             Simply put, the process known as “waterboarding” is a torturing method. It is nothing more or nothing less; just a torturing method. Although American government officials may define waterboarding as “interrogation method,” all it really is a person horribly torturing another person to achieve a set goal (which is this case would be obtaining information). Yes, although they maybe criminals, but they are still humans. As it is obvious that one random person cannot decide to murder somebody as a means of punishment, the same concept applies here. Although criminals may impose a means of threat (depending on the seriousness of the crime), they are still humans and should be treated like one. The real problem in this case is human rights- what people can inflict on someone and what they cannot do. Waterboarding is unethical in every aspect; the method itself is inhumane, and ultimately affects the victims physically, emotionally, psychologically. Not only that, it is abusive enough for “President Barrack Obama to ban waterboaring after he took office in 2009.”

             The author and journalist Christopher Hitchens vividly sends the how dangerous waterboarding can be to its victims through his article called “Believe Me, It’s Torture” in the Vanity Fair magazine October 2011 issue. Christopher Hitchens, who volunteers to experience what waterboarding is really like, vividly explains to he’s readers the true seriousness of this process. He begins by stating an agreement that he had to sign, which says “Waterboarding is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional, psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.” The current situation of Hitchens at this point is that he is volunteering to experience this- everything can be stopped at his will. But despite that, Hitchens had to sign to this agreement saying he can be injured despite the precautions. This would naturally make people think how horrible it would have been for the actual people who had to face this torture method: as far as they know, waterboarding was continuous and everlasting.

             In the peer-reviewed book called The Iraq Papers by John Ehrenberg, J. Patrice McSherry, Jose Ramon Sanchez, Caroleen Marji Sayej, it gives a very accurate definition of waterboarding: “ […]  is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration – usually the person goes into hysterics on the board.”

Also, the book goes onto adding that “When [waterboarding is] done right, it is controlled death.” Can you imagine such things being forced upon people? Despite them being criminals, they still are someone’s son or daughter, someone’s husband, someone’s father, and someone’s friend. Yes, suffering the consequences is crucial for criminals. But do they deserve to be deprived of the natural rights given to them as humans? Upon faced with this question, anybody would agree that waterboarding raises ethical problems that should have an effect on all of us as humans.

             Despite the seriousness of this act and how horrible it is, according to the Los Angeles Times newspaper article titled “Candidate to lead CIA Clandestine Service Stirs Controversy” by Ken Dilanian, “The Justice Department has twice declined to prosecute anyone for the so-called enhanced interrogations, which involved waterboarding, sleep deprivation, slapping and extreme temperatures.” We can see here that waterboarding is equally treated with sleep deprivation, slapping, and extreme temperatures and are labeled as “enhanced interrogations.” At this point, just the word “enhanced” seems to imply “cruel” in the phrase “enhanced interrogations” that the American government agencies label these processes as.

Considering that waterboarding is an interrogation process and thus are being used for criminals only, some people may claim that this has nothing to do with ethical issues. Not only that, some may even say that as criminals, they have lost every right people get as humans from the moment that they commit a crime. But if we consider ourselves in their position, things would look different. Although the victims of waterboarding will all be criminals, that does not mean that they are not humans. If we place ourselves in that position, what we want would be different.

Waterboaring is a tortouring method; there is no doubt about that. But the ethical problem comes to surface when we take a look at the impact of what waterboarding can do on its victims-Scarring them physically, emotionally, and psychologically. Despite the fact that people would have different perspectives about waterboarding (human rights versus punishing criminals), but it is just too obvious that waterboarding is a harsh torturing technique. The evidence of that would be the fact that “President Obama banned waterboarding and other abusive technique after he took office in 2009” (LA Times). The importance of human rights is more important- the president of this country has shown that.

"Shooting an Elephant"

1. What made a police officer to hesitate shooting an elephant?

2. What he felt towards crowds when they pushed him to shoot an elephant?

3. What was author’s purpose of detailed depiction of shooting an elephant and his dying?

“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell details imperialism and its complexity by recanting the story of a police officer who was faced against an aggressive elephant gone wild in the city of Burma.

The essay emphasizes how the people of Burma simply expected the officer to shoot it down without question as if he was obligated to do so.  Conversely speaking the officer thought differently which was made all the more apparent as he ultimately saw the elephant succumb to a slow and painful death after he did, in fact, decide to shoot it down.

In my opinion if an officer shoots an elephant without any hesitation whatsoever then people will think how ruthless he is in terms of regard for nearby citizens who could have been hit by stray bullets. In the context of Burma then those residents may have treated the police officer, an authority figure, as part of the British army, a more advanced authority figure, who invaded their territory and killed many people for their own benefits.

It should be noted, however, that this story of imperialism was written by Orwell, a staunch anti-imperialist writer, and based on his past, personal experiences in Burma before. It can be asserted that he may have had similar experiences or imagined something similar to the police officer’s predicament while staying there. Therefore shooting an elephant in this story should not be taken literally but more along the lines of a general, tough decision that could be dictated by other forces or nearby people which could have an effect on the nation’s position and overall image.

In the end a police officer shooting an elephant is an illustration of the negativity behind imperialism and made apparent by George Orwell who has strong anti-imperialistic views with empathy towards the Burmese.

Reflection: Rhetorical Critique

From the rough draft to the final draft, there are some changes that I would like to note. First and most importantly, I added more of the “logos” evidences of my argument to support my idea further, because I believed I lacked in the logos section from the pathos, ethos, and logos requirement for our essay. After I added more evidences, I reorganized the evidences and my ideas that I had written down, in a manner that I believed is logical and supports my idea even more. Besides that, I heavily relied my essay fixation on the professor’s comments that I received from my rough draft of the essay. I took out some words that throws my point off in the essay, and tried to replace them with the proper words to the best of my ability. I also tried to identify exactly where my evidences are with proper quotation, and even tried to shorten them with precision to make my point, because long quotes just take a big spot on the paper when it is unnecessary (can be shortened). I also played further with my thesis to make it more detailed. When all the really important parts of the essay (as noted above) are completed, I turned to the minor details: the grammar and the mechanics. I fixed capitalization, grammar, and punctuations so that I would fit in the manner of a final draft of an essay.

A Small Place

1. Are people in poor countries unhappy to their life?

2. What is the standard of satisfaction of people?

3. Is her opinion common to others who live in Antigua?

 

In Jamaica Kincaid’s book she narrates to readers as if they were tourists Antigua which is an island whose economy is dependant on tourism.  Her detailed and specific examples make readers imagine the places and atmosphere as she indicates.  She criticizes several things about Antigua in her book such as the money making scheme of the government, damaged libraries and so forth.

However I had some doubt while I was reading her book which was, “Do the current Antigua residents share the same sentiments as Kincaid?”  After all she is a person who immigrated to the United States from Antigua.  Therefore she is not a current resident of that island and has the luxury of knowing what it’s like to live in the US, a superpower country that’s vastly different from an island.  With that in mind she compares lifestyles of people between the ordinary Antiguans and those who can afford to travel to other countries.  She asserts that since they have difficulties in their daily lives that it must be due to their lifestyle in Antigua.  This, essentially, suggests that if they were to be living in the US that their lives would be better compared to the one afforded to them by Antigua.  However there is no definitive way to determine if poor people, such as the ones in Antigua, are truly happy or not based on the country or island that they are living in.  For all we know the poor people in Antigua are actually happy and grateful with what they have as they do not have the luxury of knowing what it’s like to live affluently in a country such as the US.  This is unfair on Kincaid’s part as she does have an unfair advantage of being able to experience both.

While some disadvantages of insufficient welfare might be true as Kincaid refers in her book, however, that’s still inherent in any country including the superpower that is the United States.  There are still poor people even in the US similar to Antigua so both are not vastly different from one another in that sense.  Even with that being said Kincaid expresses disdain towards the tourists, who feed the economy in Antigua, and how they visit based on the marketing of the island as a tropical destination.  Conversely speaking Kincaid also speaks negatively on the Antiguans for falsely portraying their own island as one without any problems when in reality they are from perfection with a poorly structured government as only one of major problems in regards to the island.

All in all Jamaica Kincaid has plenty to say but most of her thoughts and points are nothing but criticism that could be questioned by many people, in my opinion.  Due to personal biases such as living in both Antigua and the United States and then assuming the poor people in Antigua are unhappy simply based on the fact that they’re considered poor to Americans’ standards, I found it hard to take majority of her comments without a grain of salt.

2nd Essay Commentary: Hayley Montes

Commenter: Beomseok Kim
Essay Title: Believe Me, it’s Torture

 Author: Hayley Montes

            This essay’s organization is well developed; it successfully builds from one idea and adds on information until Haley achieves her standpoint at that Christopher Hitchens successfully proves that waterboarding is a torture. But just to give a suggestion on improving the essay, I would first look at the introduction paragraph. First of all, the hook can be improved immensely. Although the current hook is an excerpt from the actual article by Hitchens, which is a possible strategy for a hook, but an eye-catching hook will work much better to start the whole essay. Just to give a suggestion for an attention-grabbing hook, replace the original hook with a very short excerpt of Hitchen’s experience of waterboarding. Just a glimpse of the sheer chilling feeling that readers would get is more than enough to tie the attention of the readers to the essay. Another important part of the introduction that can be improved is the thesis. The current thesis has the basic components of what a thesis should have, but I can be defined even further in detail. The current thesis is a little vague; the part “uses of ethos, logos, and pathos” can be explained a little further, which would wrap up and sum up the essay into one sentence in full detail. A suggestion that can be made with the thesis would be explaining how Hitchens uses ethos, logos, and pathos to bring his message to readers: something like ethos-Hitchens went through the simulation, logos-the agreement that Hitchens had to sign, pathos-the seriousness of this process.

            In the second paragraph, the author has declared that Hitchens uses logos by stating his own experience, thus adding credibility to what he is arguing about. If this is the case, stating what happened in his experience would be needed. It does not have to be every single thing that happened throughout the experience, but just the key facts that would convince the readers to

agree with the writer. Currently, this paragraph lacks that, and I think it would add power to the paragraph if this idea is taken into account. Another concern that I had in the second paragraph is the phrase “If that is not enough.” This statement makes the essay author look like she is doubting herself, which is not the best thing to do in an essay where your main goal is to convince someone.

            Besides that, the essay is in a good condition considering that this is still a rough draft. What I liked most about this essay is that I (unfortunately) disagreed with the writer of this essay- meaning that successfully got her point across to the reader (me), and I just happen to disagree because I have a different view point. Otherwise, I would not have even understood the essay in the first place if it was confusing to read. 

Essay 2 1st Draft

Beomseok Kim 

English 1B

Professor Brown

26 March 2013

“Water Boarding”: Nothing More or Nothing Less than a Torture Technique

The concept of torturing someone is a subject that we are very well aware of, and yet seem to feel that we are far away from. Considering this idea, for some people “water boarding” maybe a word that they have never heard of in their entire life. To those people who are not aware of the true meaning of “water boarding,” this word may trigger happy memories such as playing inside a pool with siblings, or surfing on top of the ocean waves. But the truth behind “water boarding,” is that it is a method of torture technique that is being imposed on the victim with water. Although there maybe people opposing views regarding this topic, but the method of “water boarding” is similar to the concept of torturing. To emphasize this idea, Christopher Hitchens, the author of the article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” from the Vanity Fair October 2011 issue, addresses his personal encounter of the method of “water boarding.” Hitchens successfully convinces his readers into believing that “water boarding” is in fact a torturing method, through his vivid descriptions of his experience, incorporating the words of Mr. Malcom Nance thus adding credibility to his argument, and his sheer choice of words that he uses throughout the article.

Christopher Hitchens vividly describes his own personal encounter of “water boarding” experience, appealing to the emotions of his readers. Hitchens mentions that before even starting

with his actual “water boarding” experience, he had to sign an agreement that describes this process as “[…] a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body,” warning him how dangerous “water boarding” actually is. To begin the process, he adds, “I was very gently yet firmly grabbed from behind, pulled to my feet, pinioned by my wrists, […] and cut off from the sunlight by having a black hood pulled over my face.” From signing the agreement and into starting the process, the description is so vivid that readers can see what is happening right before their eyes. Without a doubt, what they are seeing would be a start of a torturing process. Hitchens then goes on to add that “In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. [The natural inhalating process] brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face.” Hitchens’s description drives the readers to sit on the edge of the chair and to expect the obvious; the torture. With this words creating a vivid imagery of what he is going through, this whole process efficiently appeals to the pathos aspect to the readers by making them feel this and thus leaving it to the readers to decide if this horrible process is torture or not.

             Another method Hitchens uses to add to the idea that “water boarding” is a torturing process, is adding a credible source to support his argument.  The writer adds that he had read that “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, invariably referred to as the ‘mastermind’ of the atrocities of September 11, 2011, had impressed his interrogators by holding out for upwards of two minutes before cracking.” What is cleverer, is that he puts his own experience results right afterwards, thus making a comparison: “Well, O.K, I admit that I didn’t outdo him,” adding to the idea of the harshness of the torture. What is stronger then this comparison is incorporating the words of Mr. Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq, and the person who tailed Al-Qaeda from the 1990s. His argument, regarding the adoption of water boarding by the US starts off by stating: “Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.” Right from the beginning, an expert who had been tailing Al-Qaeda from the 1990s and a person who dealt with the nightmare of September 11, 2001 attack, defines waterboarding as “a deliberate torture technique.” It is nothing more or nothing less- just a method of torturing someone else. What is far more powerful is Nance’s second argument, which states: If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive US citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm’s way.” Although it indicates that if you stay in the country you would be affected of it, but what this sentence is suggesting is that if the US does not abandon this technique, ultimately the country would be putting its own citizens at risk of the same torture technique by the hands of other countries. Jeopardizing with all American citizens’ freedoms – what can be more effective argument then this? In one way or the other, Hitchens brings home the concept of “waterboarding = torturing method” with Mr. Nance’s arguments.

             Not only that, Hitchens also connects the two methods in making his article successful by his choice of words, diction. His choice of words seems so perfect and precise; that it looks like his diction connects the two methods, thus creating a far strengthened argument then the previous one. Right from the beginning, he starts off his article with “Here is the most chilling way I can find of stating the matter.” Hitchens tells the readers right in the front that this is the most “chilling” way that he can describe this. And then he continues to use words such as inflicted, harsh, barbarism, a lawless foe, interrogation, darkened, injuries, death, drowning,

Behading, [and  even phrases like] the languages of torture,” throughout the whole entire article functions in a way that these words pin the readers into this subject and make them keep the “chill” that they start with until the end of this article. It not only connects the methods of appealing to the emotions of readers and adding credibility, but creating a far greater argument that would last in the readers mind for a very long time.

             The writer Christopher Hitchens successfully defines the process of “water boarding” as a method of torturing. He achieves this by describing in detail of what the writer himself felt while going through the experience of the activity of “water boarding,” painting the vivid visual in his readers mind of the pain and the suffering that he went through. Not only that, adding creditable source to his argument strengthens it, thus making it so much more reassuring. After reading his article, it is very difficult to disagree with the author, which proves that Hitchens successfully achieves what he meant to do with this article.