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.