Commentary #4 for Siqi Li

        The first paragraph does a good job of stating your proposal and making your stance on the issue clear.  If I were to summarize your thesis: Modern technologies should be utilized instead of the archaic and unreliable torture methods.  I had trouble understanding the specifics of your proposal; perhaps you could elaborate further and mention more details regarding your plan.

The second paragraph explains how modern intelligence equipment has been successful in the raid on Osama bin Laden.  Your claim was restated nicely and is followed by a couple of supporting claims.  The background information regarding the technologies is nicely laid out and flows smoothly.  The part about describing flexibility should be changed though because it is hard to follow.  One line regarding the flexibility was really confusing and should be revised: “either limiting others’ usage or let suspects electronic devices serve for us”.  Some outside evidence could also be used to strengthen your argument.

The third paragraph continues to explain how surveillance and monitoring was employed which led to the raid on Osama bin Laden.  The first sentence really does seem out of place and should probably be merged into the first paragraph to give it outside evidence and also reduce repetitiveness.  It then describes how the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) played a key role in supporting the raid on Osama bin Laden.  The outside evidence works however, the recycled example of the raid on Osama bin Laden makes your argument appear more repetitive and less effective.  The first and second paragraphs seem very similar however their reasons are slightly different.

The fourth paragraph starts out by explaining the amount of CIA employees killed in the line of duty.  It effectively gets the point across that the amount of causalities can be reduced through the use of unmanned drones and other technology.  Your outside evidence from Fenwick should be replaced.  Remember, the prompt is about torture in the United States, not the United Kingdom.  The paragraph proves how the technology is flexible, however it doesn’t mention how unmanned drones are a replacement for torture.  You should try to prove how the technology can get reliable information from suspected terrorists as opposed to torture, not how they reduce causalities.

The fifth and sixth paragraphs should probably be merged because they both include possible objections.  The paragraphs don’t mention alternative ways to solve the problem either which makes them even more related.  The first objection addressed acknowledges that the effectiveness of the technologies mentioned lacks decisive evidence to prove that they really work.  The next objection involves an event in 2011 which outlined the event of a drone being shot down and captured.  It is also mentioned how they can be hacked and it is proposed that software could be improved to make them safer.  The rapid change of technology has improved as opposed to dated torture methods was also mentioned.

The conclusion does a good job of summarizing your argument.  It doesn’t seem to call readers to action or end with something memorable though as mentioned in the Organization Plan on page 328 of Writing Arguments.  The thesis statement should probably be revised because I don’t really see how your reasons supporting your claim tie into it.  I also failed to see how information obtained through technology is equivalent to the information obtained from the torture of a suspected terrorist.  I kept wondering how the intelligence gathered is comparable.  I also think it would be better if the thesis was revised and perhaps some paragraphs are changed to make your stance clearer.  I can clearly see that you are against torture methods; your reasons could do a better job of proving your stance though.  Aside from the suggestions I made, I think your argument could use more supportive evidence and better conform to the Organization Plan.

Proposal Argument (First Draft)

Myles Sachs

Professor Brown

English 1B

5 August 2013

Truth Through Drugs, Not Torture

            There is nothing “enhanced” about “enhanced interrogation”.  Various methods of torture have been used for centuries and most do not yield accurate results.  When the Bush Administration was forced into implementing a solution to retrieve information from suspected terrorists following the horrific events that transpired on September 11^th, 2001 their attempt to solve a problem of getting answers was not only archaic and unethical, it ultimately failed.  The United States not only spends the most on health care per capita, it is also known as an innovator in the medical industry.  There hasn’t been any proof that enhanced interrogation actually worked, however there is proof that drugs have been effective at getting people to really speak what is on their mind.

            I would propose that drugs are used in place of various mental and physical torture methods as a way to obtain accurate information without inflicting any physical pain.  One of the most commonly overlooked reasons in regards to using drugs over torture is that they don’t inflict any physical pain when used correctly.  Drugs have also been proven to work when it comes to obtaining accurate and reliable information unlike torture.  When drugs are used in place of torture, they also don’t cause the same degree of mental damage that a torture method such as a waterboarding session would.  Similar, if not the same types of drugs are used regularly in the medical industry and have proven to be safe and effective without any long term damage unlike torture methods.

            Drugs should be used in place of torture to obtain accurate information from suspected terrorists while minimizing the impact of their long term health.  Some reasons supporting my proposal include: they do not inflict physical pain and they can effectively produce accurate information.  There is simply no contest when it comes to comparing the amount of pain caused by a needle as opposed to a commonly employed torture tactic such as sleep deprivation.  There is practically no physical pain when it comes to injecting a substance.  Imagine yourself at the doctor’s office getting an annual flu shot or a vaccination, sure you might feel a stinging sensation at the point of injection however it is minimal compared to torture and is very short term.  An article describes the process: “The drug is injected slowly into a vein in order to induce a relaxed state of mind in which the suspect becomes more talkative and has less emotional control” (Macdonald 259).  The procedure is quick and doesn’t cause anywhere near as much physical pain as torture would.

            Unlike the use of torture, drugs have had more success in producing accurate information.  As I mentioned the process of injecting drugs, the purpose of it (which makes a suspect become more talkative and have less emotional control) is an example I am sure most of you can relate to.  A recent example is when I went bar hopping with my best friend.  I only had a couple drinks because I nobly insisted that I would be the designated driver.  I didn’t really feel any different; however my best friend consumed a lot of alcohol before we decided to go on a walk.  The first thing I noticed is that he was much more talkative and didn’t hesitate to share whatever crossed his mind.  It was almost like he opened the flood gates and the secrets he internalized came surging out.  He also seemed intent on providing each and every detail no matter how insignificant.  The information seemed to be accurate because the next time I saw him sober he wondered how I found out so much personal information.  A U.S. News article outlines the effect of a hormone known as oxytocin on obtaining accurate information by creating a sense of trust: “Instead of using interrogation techniques that threaten to harm detainees and have been repeatedly proven to be ineffective, interrogators could play "good cop" with detainees. With the added edge of oxytocin, they could "tip the balances a little” (qtd. in Koebler 1).  The bottom line is that substances can really be effective at obtaining accurate information.

            As with most controversial issues, there is almost always opposition and alternate proposals to address the issue at hand.  The proposal I have created is indeed illegal, however it would appear to be more ethical than torture because it doesn’t cause any long term damage and some drugs have the same effect as legal substances such as alcohol.  Some could also argue that using drugs is unsafe because they can be deadly if used in high doses.  Another counterclaim would be extracting inaccurate information, while it might be true that not all information received from someone who is under the influence of mind altering substances is reliable, the amount of accurate information obtained from drug assisted interrogation is much higher than information received from torture.  An alternate proposal to this problem would be from the current United States President Barack Obama.  He recently signed executive orders closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp which would effectively end the secret prisons operated by the CIA.  The order also required all interrogations are subject to following the procedures in the Army Field Manual.  President Obama mentioned his intentions with his proposal in a New York Times article: “We intend to win this fight,” he said. “We are going to win it on our own terms” (qtd. in Shane, Mazzetti and Cooper).  Even though there are alternatives and opposition, my solution would work especially if the use of drugs on terrorists was made legal in place of torture. 

            The solution I proposed to the issue of torture makes sense because it can effectively extract accurate information without virtually any pain or suffering.  The opposition would lead you to believe that it is unethical and violates human rights; however it would make sense in certain circumstances to drug a suspected terrorist especially when lives are at stake.  Even though President Obama enacted his version of a solution to this problem, it is only a step in the right direction and not the major jump the United States needs.  If you knew that drugging someone prior to asking them questions would help obtain the answers you’re looking for as opposed to an ineffective method such as waterboarding, which method would you use?

Works Cited

Koebler, Jason. "Oxytocin, the 'Trust Hormone,' Could Become New Interrogation Tool." U.S. News. U.S. News & World Report LP, 15 May 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/05/15/oxytocin-the-trust-hormone-could-become-new-interrogation-tool>.

Macdonald, John M. "Truth Serum." JSTOR. ITHAKA, Aug. 1955. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1139862>.

Shane, Scott, Mark Mazzetti, and Helene Cooper. "Obama Reverses Key Bush Security Policies." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 22 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Aug. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html?pagewanted=all>.

Commentary #3 for Siqi Li

        From reading your essay, I think your thesis tried to get across quite a few points.  If I were to summarize it: Even though “enhanced interrogation” might serve a good purpose, it is still immoral to inflict harsh treatment on humans, it has also been reported that the techniques are ineffective which makes it immoral to continue their use as it is a waste of limited resources.  I think your thesis brings up good points; however it is long, wordy and would greatly benefit from being shortened.  Also, I noticed that your position was not clearly stated in your thesis which could also be useful in improving it.  I like the introductory paragraph because it provides good background information regarding your topic.
The first paragraph starts off with some background about waterboarding.  It then makes a reference to the article “Believe Me, It’s Torture” with good supporting information.  The second source used in the essay regarding a Washington Post news journal seemed a little off.  You stated that: “92 videotapes of CIA prisoners being harshly treated were destroyed by the agency”.  The problem I found with the evidence provided is that it wasn’t made clear what number of the 92 tapes actually involved the use of waterboarding.  After looking at your quoted source, I found this: “Twelve of them covered the application of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", including waterboarding”. (Taylor)  You should make crucial evidence like that clear to your readers instead of making them look up the facts themselves.  The whole Washington Post article you cited should probably be disregarded because it appears to weaken your argument.  The rest of the paragraph is good and the conclusion nicely ties into your thesis.
The second paragraph begins with why the interrogation of captured terrorists is important and mentions why it is ineffective.  Your first source from “Believe Me, It’s Torture” works and brings up the point that unreliable information simply isn’t worth the time, effort and resources.  The second source “Dirty Hands, Clean Conscience” addresses how torture is ineffective at getting reliable information and ultimately was not responsible for finding Osama bin Laden.  Both sources work great and make your argument appear solid.  The conclusion once again effectively ties in with your thesis.
The concluding paragraph starts off by mentioning how the torturing terrorists isn’t justified.  The rest of the paragraph seems to keep restating the fact that torture is unethical.  A solution to the problem was also proposed at the end of the essay; however it didn’t go into detail as to what “advanced computerized measures” actually means.  There is definitely some room for improvement in the concluding paragraph.  I enjoyed reading your essay, while there might not be a match for each criteria, it got quite a few things right for a rough draft.  If I were to pretend I was skeptical of the issue of torture, I would somewhat agree with your argument.  You could definitely strengthen your argument more by providing additional evidence to support your claims.  Also, a useful tip would be to indent the start of each paragraph, use the Tab key to your advantage!

Commentary #2 for Siqi Li

First things first, the title of your essay could be a little less generic and more interesting.  In your thesis, your position is somewhat stated (you could mention that it is torture outright) also it almost reads like a question and it doesn’t include the rhetorical strategies and/or their effectiveness.  You could also mention which rhetorical strategies were effective in your thesis (Example: the argument was effective in all rhetorical strategies).  You also mentioned the title of the article after the introductory paragraph and your thesis.  It would make more sense and be easier for your readers to follow if you moved the article title within the first couple of sentences and before your thesis statement.  Each paragraph does contain a topic sentence, however not all of them provide a logical transition or give hints at the discussion to follow in the remainder of the paragraph.  I think paragraphs 3, 5, 7 and 8 should either be merged with another paragraph or placed somewhere other than a paragraph of its own because they don’t address rhetorical strategies at all.  The other paragraphs seem to have a topic sentence with a logical transition and give the reader an idea of what is ahead.  I found the essay to be lacking in the logos department.  It contained some direct quotes and paraphrasing and it should definitely be expanded.  There is some success to the appeal of logos, however the lack of information makes it less convincing than it could be.  One thing I noticed in regards to ethos in your essay was that the same concept of ethos was mentioned three separate times in three separate paragraphs.  It would make sense to combine all the separate paragraphs on ethos into one large paragraph, or separate ones that are in succession to each other because jumping from one rhetorical appeal to another and back isn’t as easy to read.  Paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 are a good example of what I am talking about.  I also noticed a similar pattern with your other appeals as well.  I think it would be easier on the readers if your organized your essay a little more so the ideas could flow better.  Using direct quotes and paraphrasing, I think the appeal to ethos is solid and manages to evaluate the success of the appeals.  The appeal to pathos is also good however, when you directly quoted the text, you didn’t cite it correctly.  Refer to paragraph 4 of your essay for the correct way to quote text directly.  Aside from that, I think it also does a good job of evaluating the success of the appeals.  The appeal of kairos is there, however it doesn’t provide effective examples either quoted or paraphrased from the source text.  The example you gave for this appeal also seemed weak and hard to follow.  The essay tried to evaluate the success in regards to the appeal of kairos but a better example could be used to make the appeal successful.  Overall, I really enjoyed reading your essay and found that some of my views are similar to yours in some respects.  If you can clean your essay up by organizing it better, provide a better appeal to logos, provide a better example for kairos, revise your introduction and thesis statement and directly quote the source text correctly then you should have a great rhetorical critique.

Blog Post #6 – 9/11 & A Few Weeks After

Question #1: How were the perpetrators of the attack not cowards?

Question #2: Aside from being strong, what else should America be?

Question #3: What should the “armed response” and counterterrorist operations consist of?

            I still remember seeing the attacks on television as I was getting ready to go to school.  My dad frantically insisted that I go to the living room and see what was on the news.  It was then I saw the first plane crash into a tower, I must have watched the same clip of the plane crashing between 3 and 5 times before I ate breakfast and got ready.  Not only do I still remember that image, I also remember adding the word terrorist to my vocabulary.  Before I left for school the second plane crashed and took down the other tower.  I also watched that scene quite a few times.  The news did a great job of making me remember the events that transpired; and it was enough to make just about every American outraged with the Middle East, especially Iraq.  One thing the author mentioned that I agree with: “Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K.” (Sontag 1)  Within a day of the attack, that appeared to be the only thing on the news.  I certainly didn’t think that was the case.  At that time many Americans felt vulnerable and at the same time appalled as to how such a devastating event could happen.  That is why it wasn’t long before the war against the Middle East started and Homeland Security became a reality.  Security has stepped up a tremendous amount following the attack and it still remains that way.  I still remember a simpler time when the TSA wasn’t so uptight about security and waiting hours in line for multiple security checks when flying just wasn’t the case.  I think it’s safe to say that all of the extra security measures brought on by the attack have done their job at preventing another attack.  I also agree with the authors closing statement in her interview: “An armed response—in the form of a complex and carefully focused set of counterterrorist operations; not a war—is necessary. And justified.” (Sontag 2) The past few sentences I wrote mentioning tighter security is probably what she meant was necessary and justified.  I won’t state my position regarding the whole war in the Middle East because politics simply aren’t worth arguing over.

Blog Post #5 - Believe Me, It’s Torture

Question #1: What is the percentage of accurate information produced as a direct result of waterboarding?

Question #2: Did the author really experience a panic attack, or was that just a metaphor?

Question #3: Is the technique ethical even when performed on a terrorist?

            I found this article to be interesting and it was also a great topic to share with my family to see what they think.  One of the things I asked them was whether or not they would consider the technique “ethical” if performed on a terrorist as opposed to a murderer.  Their reactions were what I was expecting.  They agreed that if such an act was performed on a terrorist withholding information, then it would be an appropriate course of action.  When I asked them why, I also got the responses that I was expecting.  They also seemed to agree that terrorism is unjust and no amount of torture is too extreme.  Even after explaining to them the process of waterboarding as outlined in the article, they still had the same views.  An interesting line I came across while reading this article was: “The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer.” (Hitchens 2)  One of the questions I almost immediately asked myself after reading that line was what percentage of the information obtained through waterboarding turned out to be true?  Although it might be an effective way to get someone who is quiet to talk; I would like to know how effective it is and whether or not the information they receive on a moment’s notice is in fact true.  Another part of the article that came to my attention was: “Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex.” (Hitchens 2)  As someone who has personally experienced a real panic attack and has occasional bouts of panic from time to time, I can’t help but think the author of the article is exaggerating a little.  I think he meant to refer to his short term anxiety during his personal encounter because it almost seems like he is using the term “panic attack” out of context.

Blog Post #4 - Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid

Question #1: Why is there aerial fighting and which war is it?

Question #2: How are the women prisoners?

Question #3: How could a restriction on child-bearing serve as a peace term?

            The biggest problem I have with this article is the difference in dialect.  Not only that, the author brought up too many different topics which made this story hard to follow and understand (for me at least).  The first paragraph made sense; it describes the scene of aerial warfare and thoughts about peace.  One of the things the author mentioned in the second paragraph is: “Arms are not given to Englishwomen either to fight the enemy or to defend herself.” (Woolf 1) I don’t really see how that is a bad thing considering that women probably don’t want to fight in the first place.  Another thing off about her statement is how women aren’t given weapons to defend themselves.  The entire article goes on about aerial warfare, not ground wars consisting of infantry, tanks, etc.  So it would be highly unlikely that a woman would need a firearm to defend herself from enemy aircraft.  There is one point the author does make that I partially agree with:     “There is no woman in the Cabinet; nor in any responsible post. All the idea-makers who are in a position to make ideas effective are men.” (Woolf 1) The only reason why I partially agree with it because there have been women in the Cabinet since this article was written.  One of the more recent ones I can think of is Hilary Clinton.  One thing I can agree with the author on is the fact that there still hasn’t been a woman president of the United States.  One of the parts that stood out most to me in the article was when the author started talking about limiting child bearing for world peace.  It just didn’t make any sense to me, especially when she said: “They would give them other openings for their creative power. That too must make part of our fight for freedom.” (Woolf 4) I am aware that child-bearing can be a seemingly daunting task especially considering all of the costs (not just financial) associated with it.  I still don’t see how not having children could make men more “creative”.  If anything, the opposite would be true because fathers can help their children solve problems by coming up with creative solutions.  When the author makes mention of how it helps their “fight to restore freedom”, she doesn’t really go into detail on how not having children gets them closer to winning this war she refers to.

Blog Post #3 – What’s So Bad About Hate?

Question #1: Where is the line between a hate crime and a non-hate crime?

Question #2: Why do some “races” feel more superior over others?

Question #3: What kind of extra penalties should be imposed for hate crimes?

            I thought this article was interesting.  Expressing negative thoughts or anger towards a group of people doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  A lot of the “hate” simply comes from a person of a particular race usually doing something to leave a negative impression on you.  An example of this would be a trip to a store such as the Home Depot.  You need help lifting a heavy pot into your car and Jose significantly scratches your bumper with the pot on accident.  You shouldn't get mad at Hispanics in general, just Jose (the individual, not every Hispanic named Jose).  Thanks to the help of stereotypes and cultural stigmas, that isn't usually the case.  Having one bad experience with a member of a particular “race” isn't a good reason to judge a group of people in my opinion.  I honestly think that “hate” is more of a cultural construct than anything else.  If you tell someone it is ok to make fun of another individual or group for being different, that is wrong and it also happens more commonly than you might think.  Intolerance has been a driving factor to do some really stupid things in the history of the United States.  The biggest one in my opinion not mentioned in the article is prior to the Civil Rights movement.  There was a period where people thought it was ok to literally buy, sell and trade other humans as slaves simply because of their dark skin tone.  One good example from this article I think is worth mentioning is the two neighbors in California.  After reading it, I noticed it was two neighbors in a scuffle and one person involved just happened to be homosexual.  I thought it was completely wrong to charge heterosexual neighbors son for a hate crime.  The homosexual neighbor provoked the actions which ultimately led to the police being called and he wasn't faulted which I think is a good example of how messed up the legal system can be.   As much as I don’t like to admit it, I partially agree with Sullivan’s conclusion in which he said: “For all our rhetoric, hate will never be destroyed.  Hate, as our predecessors knew better, can merely be overcome”. (Sullivan 11)  Hopefully he is right and it can be overcome.  A good real world example of this change occurring is the more liberal views taken towards controversial topics such as gay marriage.  Not only that, hopefully people in general can get along, try to think more positively towards others, try to avoid anger and other negative hateful thoughts towards an individual or a group.

Blog Post #2 - Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex

Question #1: Why is her odd sense of fashion so heavily criticized?

Question #2: How do you compare celebrity sex icons to an unattractive singer?

Question #3: How could the absence of facial expressions and body language make a difference in someone’s ability to sing?

            It isn't too hard to tell that the author of this article isn't the biggest fan of Stefani Germanotta (commonly referred to as her stage name “Lady Gaga”).  I can’t blame her though because I really don’t care for her either.  I have seen some of her costumes on the news, the last one being a dress composed entirely of raw meat.  Her sense of fashion is undoubtedly odd and at the same time it is one of the things she does that differentiates her from other music artists.  The songs she comes up with aren't very good in my opinion and her fashion sense is what I think sets her apart.  Another thing I noticed about this article was how the author compares Hollywood sex icons to “Lady Gaga”.  The author seems to forget that “Lady Gaga” is a singer because she compares her to Clara Bow who is an actor.  I think what she was trying to get at is that the fashion sense of “Lady Gaga” is much different than the Hollywood sex icons.  Facial expressions and body language are a great way to communicate especially to those who can’t speak in the same language as you.  Sure “Lady Gaga” might not use any facial expressions in many of her videos and even during live performances, however that shouldn't have too much of an impact on her ability as a singer.  I have noticed through observations that many of her fans are the type that text excessively.  Just because they are obsessed with texting shouldn't be a reason for the lack of expressions to go unnoticed.  I remember seeing one of her music videos and it literally had images with lyrics in the foreground and singing in the background.  The music videos I saw from her were so plain, unoriginal and boring.  That shouldn't be a reason to criticize the fans for texting though.  “Lady Gaga” is different in terms of her fashion sense; however that doesn't affect her singing ability which she should probably focus more on to avoid harsh criticism from authors such as Paglia.

Blog Post #1 – Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Question #1: Is the internet the only thing responsible for altering reading habits?

Question #2: Are numerous advertisements to blame for less interest in modern media?

Question #3: How is “systematizing everything” more effective?

There’s no doubt about it, the internet has become a part of daily life and can even be considered a modern necessity in order to stay connected to the rest of the world.  Personally, I don’t think that the internet is solely responsible for altering the way people read.  One of Carrs’ claims that I disagree with is: “I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle.” (Carr 1)  Later in the article he mentions that his lack of patience towards reading is caused by the internet.  The way consumers read written materials such as: books, magazines and/or newspapers have drastically changed.  Many publishers of printed media had to alter their business models just to keep their doors open.  With that being said, there has also been a change in how consumers have been reading.  There are numerous advantages involved with printed media such as: no batteries to charge, no loading times and most importantly, it doesn’t cause eyestrain as fast as a modern LCD screen.  There are also disadvantages to printed media such as: environmentally unfriendly, not as portable and usually heavier than their electronic counterparts.  Mobile computing devices such as laptops, tablets and smartphones have revolutionized the way consumers read by providing nearly instant access to huge databases of content.  They can also be blamed for making reading faster paced and less immersive than their printed counterparts.  Personally, I have trouble staring at an LCD screen no matter what device it is on for any longer than a couple hours at a time before my eyes feel like they are burning or before I start developing back pain and stiffness.  I know many other people who experience similar problems and many good examples of this could also be found on the internet.  Basically, I think that modern electronic devices with LCD screens have compromised the ability of many to read for longer periods of time, not the internet.  It only makes sense to read faster in order to avoid the occasional eyestrain and back pain.