Essay 1 reflection

Kourosh Abascal
Professor Brown
English 1B
25 March 2013

Reflection

             I actually learned a lot from both my teacher and my peer commentary. Between Mr. Brown's notes as well as Gabe's, I was able to rewrite my essay in a way that actually made more sense. I also had my friend take a look at it and get a 3rd set of comments on it. The great part of all the commentaries was that they all sort of said the same thing in a way. On my actual essay, I condensed my essay but also expanded it. I took out some parts that didn't make sense and rearranged the others to make it flow a lot easier. And for my thesis, I was able to change it up and be more direct with it. I added more quotes and incorporated them much better instead of just throwing them in there. The truth is that after reading my essay with all the commentaries in mind, I was able to see how much work was actually needed for it. They all were able to help me turn it into something I can actually say made sense. The idea of commentaries is actually really helpful and I myself benefited greatly on it.

What's So Bad About Hate

1. What is hate really?
2. Does hate really exist?
3. The does hate seem to rise up the more we try to extinguish it?

"9/11"

1. Did Susan Sontag seem less patriotic after this article?

2. Why did Sontag say she would rather have been in New York on September 11th?

3.What actually is terrorism and will it ever be finished or pleased?


2. I will be touching on question 3

What is a terrorist and what is terrorism? In the dictionary a terrorist is defined as a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. And terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those definitions describe dedication is ones cause. People who fight for what they believe in for political purposes. I in no way condone what is being done by organizations like Al' Qaeda or anyone else like them but using that definition, wouldn't the United States also be considered to be terrorist? We fight for political purposes and that's exactly what terrorism means. Each side has their own story but the way the "terrorist" we are describing now are fighting is unjust. They are using the issues in the Middle-East to have a cause. I agree with Sontag that terrorism really has no end. They use the ideas of oppression to justify their cause. But as she said, even if all the wars, fighting, and bloodshed ceased, the terrorist wouldn't.
They feel like heroes. They would feel like their actions accomplished something and that doing it again would help the next cause. That would lead to only to more tiny worthless causes just to get another win. And wiping them out isn't that easy either. Since they are mixed in with the civilian population, taking them out would cause innocent casualties and in turn, the families of the innocent people that died would have a cause. Just like the hydra in Greek mythology, for every head to cut, two more grow in its place. It seems like an ever lasting cycle. Hopefully somewhere in the future someone figures out the answer to stop terrorism before it becomes too unmanageable.

Essay Comment

Authority Accountability and Social Media

The essay is very well written. Gabe uses all three forms of rhetoric but his main approach in his argument is the use of logos. His structure is based off of logic and should be what most people should respond to. He also uses ethos with his sources to back up the claims to have that much more of a convincing argument. There feels as though there might be a bit of pathos used because we all probably do feel less trusting of the government and it might start to make us think about our experiences on the subject. The points he brings up are clear and they all suppose his that thesis that corruption has always been there, it's just more exposed. Gabe's ideas are all organized and split up into paragraphs so each point he has can be expressed without confusion. The argument in itself actually make me think. I never thought of it that the corruption hasn't increased but that we are aware of it. I did read it as a neutral audience and the reasons and evidence Gabe presented were relevant to his thesis. By the end of the essay I believe it did make me believe the overwhelming access we have to different sources such as the media and the internet really do make a difference.

In the 5th paragraph is where Gabe brings up the alternative view that maybe the society we live in is actually what's to blame and there actually is more corruption. I guess one could say that it wasn't fair the amount of backing his alternative view was given. A little more evidence of the opposing view might help make his case stronger when even with evidence supporting the alternative view, his argument triumphs because of how structural the rest of his essay is. The defense he uses for the opposing view he has at the moment is compelling. He stands his ground and says that society now is safer than ever. As of now, any neutral audience would definitely read and absorb the writing and possible be swayed in Gabe's direction. If a little more of a counter argument was introduced, with even more of a defense to make his case, he would win over a bigger group of readers

Believe Me, It's Torture

1. Does Hitchens try to make us feel bad for him because of his age and past?

2. Does torture really work?

3. How is waterboarding all that different than other types of torture.

I will be answering question 2.


To honestly tell you the truth, I don't think that torture even works all that well. Hitchen's article says that we have training procedures of torture for our military that if they get captured and tortured, they would be able to withstand it. Who says that the opposing side isn't doing the same. In the past the United States has militarily trained different countries and group that are now our enemies. One example is Al' Qaeda. In 1970, the US trained forces in Afghanistan to help them fight the Russian threat in that area. And as sure I am that the sky is blue, I'm sure that they also trained them to withstand torture. But even if you did have someone they believe was higher up, they wouldn't spill out any information anyway. They have higher stakes in the cause and obviously have devoted beliefs to get them at high up. They would rather die than have anything to do with halting their cause.

A second problem that does arise is the idea that the information you get out of someone is actually factual. It's been said that everyone has a breaking point. But who's to say that the breaking point is just to stop feeling the pain. They would say anything to get them out of that situation. I know I would. If I believed in the cause as much as I think Al' Qaeda believes in it, I would give as much corrupted information to them to completely throw them off the trail. What is actually stopping any hostage from giving that information. That information not only throws the integrator off, but also stops his torture in the meantime. It's a win win for the hostage. Eventually the more false information he gives, the less of a reliable source he becomes and eventually becomes useless.

But with all that being said, I don't actually know what goes on in an interrogation room so things might actually work out differently.