Commentary on Janelle's "Proposal of Death"

In Janelle’s “Proposal of Death”, she addresses the ethical dilemma of the practice, or lack thereof, of euthanasia in the United States. She holds firm to the idea that it’s immoral that we don’t allow it. In support of this notion, she proposed that “…the government should develop a special board that is geared towards the legalization and regulation of euthanasia, with focus groups working on different aspects of the regulations that will eventually be implemented into the use of euthanasia as a means of ‘final treatment’.” To me, this is a logical and concise proposal for the heated debate on euthanasia.

If a skeptic has an argument against this proposal, she backs her argument with enough evidence to possibly sway them. She uses the facts presented by how well the legalization of euthanasia has worked in the Netherlands. She states that they have several “important regulations that I believe would be essential to helping euthanasia’s legalization in the US.” She goes on to quote specific examples that would take care of any pertinent questions that would be brought up by a skeptic.

The opposition might ask that it may be “difficult to deal with those who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons, or pressurize venerable patients into dying (BBC Pro-Euthanasia Arguments).” In rebuttal, Janelle strongly states: “But if the proper regulations are made, these situations could be avoided.” I feel she could elaborate here to make her case a little stronger; such as what those regulations are in detail to counter this argument.

Janelle’s usage of the resemblance proposal with the case of the Netherlands works well overall in this essay. She could elaborate a bit more about the exact details of the regulations and such. And the main criticism I have would be to drop the part that introduces the subject of euthanasia again, because the ethical argument paper already did that. In addition, is she puts more emotion into the subject of Lillian Boyes, this could dramatically improve her chances of swaying a skeptic into believing this is an ethical right of the suffering patient. Painting a graphic picture of her death could prove very beneficial. This paper has a direct proposal that makes sense to me and with a little more detail added to it, will be an effective argument to legalize euthanasia. I have always agreed with the legalization of it here in the states and this proposal seems the fairest and most logical within the hands of our government.

           

Ethical Argument Reflection

The main difference I can see between the first and second draft of my ethical argument is the fact that I clearly stated my thesis on the ethical issue of obesity in the second revisal. I claim that it’s immoral to be so grotesquely overweight or obese and I feel that the government is not holding people responsible at the level that they ought to be. I tried to make it much clearer to the reader through my views of the moral problems with being so grossly overweight, and that we need to change this issue now in a drastic way.

In the first draft it seems as though I was using more facts and statistics than actual persuasion from my own beliefs. I feel as though I strengthened my argument and proposal by discussing a personal incident I had recently at Wal-mart. This allowed the reader to understand my view of the subject through descriptive imagery of why mandated behavioral therapy is a must to end the obesity epidemic in America. I clearly stated that it’s about the everyday choices we make rather than the actual overeating problem itself. It’s up to every person to manipulate their own life and make the right choices. The government can only do so much to control this, but it’s their responsibility too now to enforce stricter guidelines on eating healthier, exercising regularly and maintaining a normal weight. This proposal I came up with is a good idea in my opinion and could cost some serious money for the government. But in the end, it could save lives.

And finally, I structured the body of the essay better by using the advice my wise instructor gave me by showing specific “negative” consequences and what people can do to improve these immoral “learned habits.” I revised most of the first draft, but mainly left the conclusion alone because it seemed to follow the guidelines I needed to adhere to. I really felt like this last essay was easier to put together into its final draft than the other two we previously wrote. Maybe it’s because I’m very passionate about my health and other people’s too, or maybe I just don’t want to see any more obese children walking around. It breaks my heart to know that parents are choosing to let their kids eat that much.

Just do it!!!

1.       If we primarily find self-worth through “what we do”, as Wong suggests; then is it true that who we are “deep down” within our character, doesn’t really count?

2.      If you had a boss like Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, would it inspire you to “close” the deal (work harder and succeed), or would he push you to give up because of the pressure?

3.      Is it better to be a “do-er” like the gentleman in the star-spangled-banner thong who delighted us with his classy performance (one of the most awesome things I’ve ever seen). Or is it better to sit back and enjoy the show of “life” and let others do it all? Do you think it’s acceptable if someone decides to do “nothing” with their lives?

 

David Wong really got me laughing and I became very aware that he has a sick sense of humor like me while reading this. It’s an interesting concept that he formulizes here, the whole “you are what you do” theory. His tactics are unique and enlightening, for we have lived in an “it’s what’s inside that count’s” society for as long as I can remember. And that never made sense to me because most people don’t truly show anyone who they really are in fear that they will be judged by others. So I’d like to focus on my third question because this was the notion that stood out to me the most; it’s much more inspiring and fulfilling to be a “do-er” as far as I’m concerned.

What that hillbilly-punker-innovator showed us in breathtaking fashion is that first off, he does not give a flying squirrel what people think of him! I think that takes immense courage (and possibly a little craziness too) to go out and sing a song about a subject I’m pretty sure no one’s ever touched upon. But secondly, instead of sitting around thinking about it and daydreaming about putting together a fantastic ensemble, he went out and DID IT! I have always admired innovators of any kind. I look up to people that aren’t afraid to be unique and do the things that no one else does. I realize that a lot of people would be offended by this (the penis thrusts were a bit much at times). But they don’t have to watch it if they don't want to, that's the beauty of having freedom here in the good 'ol USA. They’re probably those conformists types that don’t “do” much anyways and sit around daydreaming about living “outside the box” of societies rules. Those are the people that really scare me! Not the old dude in a backyard singing about sex in a skimpy outfit. 

This article inspired me to keep living an open-minded lifestyle and to embrace being “the do-er” in every aspect of my life as I feel like I live this way already. In the end it’s only what “we do” and not “who we are inside” that counts, but it’s sensible to have a healthy balance of both. Without one or the other, we’d be a bunch of lazy pricks wandering around wondering why nothing happened in our lives. But if someone wants to sit around and “do nothing”, that’s their choice. If they are a good person deep down, then that’s all that really matters to me.

Response to "Stepping Off Maslow's Escalator"

1.    What’s the outcome that Daniel Yankelovich is searching for when he suggests we revert back to a “…simpler, more primitive” sense of self?

2.    Are the hominid’s “super-egos” going to be the ultimate downfall of our society? Is it too late to turn back?

3.    At one point, Yankelovich discusses how one couple (Abby and Mark) needs to have the most “ands” in their lives to feel self-fulfilled; is this true for all of us? How many “ands” do you need to feel content?

I would like to discuss question number one. This chapter from Daniel Yankelovich’s book was extremely thought provoking and insightful. It was another one of our assignments I had to read twice to better grasp the message, but I think I understand where he was going with this one. Overall, Yankelovich is proposing that going back to a more humble sense of self will help save us from ourselves as a species. That means give up that false sense of entitlement and stop relying on “things” to make you feel fulfilled. He is suggesting the possibility of mainly living on the physiological and safety tier of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in a round-a-bout way to help reverse our super inflated egos. Basically, we should be going back to the basics of what we “need”, not having our “wants.” I may be wrong, but that is the final thought that came to me after reading this. Although the final paragraph surmised the myriad of ideas that were proposed by Yankelovich, it seems that he himself was a little unsure as to what may happen if we abandon all “desires” and focus mainly on our “needs.” Is it even possible?

I don’t think humans can go back to being humble creatures. Do we really have it in us as a species to put our egos aside and work together for a simpler life and find a true self-actualization of ourselves? In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if one reaches self-actualization one can achieve morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. So if we abandon some of the other levels in the pyramid, how can one achieve that ultimate state of existence? Realistically, this is probably not a reliable solution to man’s “me-first” way of living, but I always like to remain an optimist. With the amount of effort we put into beautifying and improving ourselves now, I don’t see us abandoning our egos to improve our world. Unfortunately, man is inherently selfish; not all, but most. It’s unrealistic to propose that we should all of sudden give up the “self-love” trend. As annoying as selfish, over-indulgent and egotistical people are, big is in! The richer you are and the more stuff you have means you’ve “made it.” So as soon as we accept the fact that most of us are all a bunch of greedy “stuff hounds”, I think we’ll actually start moving forward in a positive direction as a species. It’s easier to put up with the gotta-have-it-all-and-then-some types if you accept the fact that their “wants” are more important than anything else.

Commentary on Janelle Slater's, "Euthanasia: The Right to Die"

            I would say that Janelle has a good start for her ethical argument paper. Based on the thesis of her argument which states, “Euthanasia should be legalized in all countries, because it is not the choice of anyone else but a person’s own personal choice”; this gave the reader a clear view as to the direction of her argument. It is very evident to me that she feels it is unethical to not allow euthanasia to take place.

            As far as the subject matter that she presents to the reader, it appears to me that she has a good criteria selection that matches her thesis. The main point that she mentions that stood out amongst the others was that terminal illness is a slow and painful death and that a person should be allowed to choose if they wish to move on.  I enjoyed her take on the matter when she said, “Having your life slowly and painfully drain away from you is considered to be terribly excruciating.” This pathos driven appeal makes the reader feel empathy for her argument.

            The question as to whether a skeptic will accept her criteria can be answered with a maybe. I only say this because I feel she may need to add several more examples to back up her main thesis that not allowing euthanasia is unethical. This can be achieved possibly through finding some actual accounts of cancer patients and such that really wanted to take advantage of euthanasia and were not allowed to. She could use quotes from the patient or families that showed their pain and struggle with not being able to make a choice that they should have been able to make.

            I think another fact or anecdote that she could use would be to discuss how other countries are able to utilize the process of euthanasia, such as Belgium and the Netherlands. She could go over the pros and cons of the recent legalization of it. This could help her general weighting of the subject for a skeptical reader. It would show a person who absolutely believes it is unethical to use euthanasia to maybe see the benefits if it has worked well in these countries.

            Like I said before, Janelle has a good start. I think if she adds the couple of ideas that I have it would make someone who is skeptical accept her point of view a little better. There is the possibility that someone may counter-argue her argument if she doesn’t provide a bit more information to back her beliefs. I already feel that euthanasia should be legalized and it is truly someone’s right to take his or her own life. I fear that because I feel this way I may not have been the skeptic that she needed to read this, but I hope that my input can assist her with the final draft.

"Vivisection"

1.    What laws can be enforced to stop animal testing?

2.    If an animal doesn’t have a voice to defend itself against slaughter and “have no souls”, does that make it acceptable to maim and kill it then?

3.    What kind of message is the bible giving when it states: “We are ‘worth more than sparrows’”? Is it saying that man is truly better than other living things?

I don’t know one person that approves of vivisection. Maybe I hang out with a bunch of liberal, free-spirited, modern-hippie type people; but they despise it as much as I abhor it. One friend in particular (names won’t be mentioned out of respect), attends a local church religiously. We don’t have a lot in common with our values and beliefs as she is a Republican full-time mom who attends church on a regular basis. She preaches about God and all his glories a great deal, and even donates to local animal shelters and is a strict vegan! But if she is such a devout Christian, wouldn’t she know that when it bluntly says in the Bible, we are “worth more than sparrows”, that it’s basically saying animals are beneath us and we can do with them as we please? It seems kind of backwards to me and a little hypocritical to practice a faith that condones animal vivisection. That is why I’d like to discuss question number three.

If the Christian faith, and the people that worship it, are such devout followers of the Bible and its message; then wouldn’t they be apt to actively support animal testing? It only makes sense to me. And in my friend’s defense, I really think she missed the “worth more than sparrows” thing. She is an amazing Christian and a great person. But it still seems kind of funny to me that she is such an animal activist and devout Christian at the same time.

The main point of this piece of reading “Vivisection” by C.S. Lewis was to get the reader to understand that promoting or boycotting animal cruelty and testing is a choice. Whether one chooses that man is more important than another living creature is purely based on ones morals. I don’t judge my friend based on her decisions, I may not believe in the same religion as her or even eat vegetarian like she does! But it just seemed a tad odd that she is a strict vegan and hard-core Christian at the same time.

This quote from the reading kind of put things into perspective for me about my main question, “The only rational line for the Christian vivisectionist to take is to say that the superiority of man over beast is a real objective fact, guaranteed by Revelation, and that the propriety of sacrificing beast to man is a logical consequence.” Is it really logical for them to kill animals for our own good? I certainly don’t think so, but who am I to judge anyways. I eat meat and buy leather. I don’t sponsor animal rights programs or anything, but I do think vivisection is wrong. I’m a somewhat non-practicing Buddhist (I believe in what he was trying to say and the whole mind-body-connection-thing) and believe that there is life in all things. Maybe my friend should give Buddha a try. It might match her vegan lifestyle a little better.

Reflection on Essay #2

When I reflect on my essay “The Black Beast That Lies Within Us All,” the one main difference I notice between my first and final draft was the fact that I legitimately couldn’t differentiate between ethos, pathos and logos rhetoric examples. I’m not going to lie, but I’d been struggling with figuring out which one was which when going over Andrew Sullivan’s, “What’s So Bad About Hate?” I read this great piece of writing over again (three times), and it finally became clear to me that he mainly was using logos and ethos appeal to win the audience over. This helped me immensely in putting the pieces of my essay together. I feel as though when I added another paragraph explaining his logos appeal usage to my critique, it strengthened my thesis in which I stated that hate crime laws are not ultimately effective.

            I also recognized, after reading over Sullivan’s article again, that there was not as much pathos driven rhetoric as I thought beforehand. Although this stood out to me the most, as in his opening statement about Byrd’s violent death; it did not embody all the strength of his argument. So with this, I decided to not focus on this as much and to lean towards using his examples of ethos derived appeal more when discussing Sullivan’s piece.

            In closing, writing the first draft helped me to put together a (hopefully) grand rhetoric on “What’s So Bad About Hate?” I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sullivan’s work and learned a great deal about understanding ethos, pathos and logos better through my writing my critique. It was inspiring as a novice writer to finish the final draft after revising the first, and I can only hope I improved on what I needed to accomplish.

Response to "Shooting an Elephant"

1.       It’s been long debated that George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is not an actual biography of this particular life experience, but instead a fiction story. What do you think after reading it?

2.      Has the slow demise of imperialism in Burma affected them in a positive or negative manner?

3.      Do you think that the man depicted in this story did what “he had to do?” Or was he a coward for letting the pressure of “not being laughed at” cloud his judgment and commit an unnecessary murder?

 

After reading Orwell’s, “Shooting and Elephant”, a couple of questions came to mind. I mainly reflected on how vicious and inhumane this “must” killing was and how I wanted to vomit after reading the highly descriptive way this magnificent creature died. However, I think he did the right thing. That is why I would like to discuss the importance of question number three.

This question of whether or not it was a just kill reminded me of a debate I had with my friend at work about a recent episode of our favorite show, “The Walking Dead.” In it, the young boy (main character Carl) is confronted by an enemy who had been firing shots at him earlier in a conflict. The enemy is a young boy himself and Carl shoots him in the head as he is attempting to surrender and hand over his weapon. The three witnesses that watched it all occur seemed shocked and horrified that this was what transpired. Carl is later confronted by his father who almost seems to question whether he did the right thing or not. Carl defends himself saying, “I did what I had to do dad.” I still think it was wrong and he went a little too far. My friend at work Joe said, “I would have killed him two seconds sooner. Kid was trying to kill me. He would have been a threat and I couldn’t trust him.” As vicious as this seemed to me at the time, when I think back on it now, I almost agree with Joe! Kill or be killed in a situation like a zombie apocalypse right?! Carl did do the right thing after all it seems. In any adrenaline filled, life or death situation; normal rationalization goes out the window. So in retrospect, it made me reevaluate my opinion of the character in Orwell’s story. Did he “do what he had to do?” I may have to say yes on this one.

As inhumane as the killing of an animal is (big or small), sometimes it is necessary. I feel sick every time I hear about it because I am such a huge animal lover. But I am also a realist, and sometimes there is the simple fact that you have to save a human life before an animal’s. And some animal rights advocates are going to really not like me for saying that last statement, but it’s just how I feel. When those Mountain Lions out in Trabuco Canyon were attacking bikers and hikers, they had to hunt and kill them to save future lives. I felt a twinge of sadness when they did catch and put them down, but I knew it was for a good reason. They were a threat to human life.

So in conclusion, if this story is indeed factual, Orwell did what he had to do. Not only had this huge elephant caused damage to this rural town already, it had the power to do it again. Remember that this was set in 1936 in a poor, imperialistic nation. They didn’t have animal control back then! As ugly as it seemed, he was under immense peer pressure to put down a “savage beast.” I think any one of us put under that kind of pressure would react in a way we never would have expected from ourselves.

Patience is a Virtue

1.      Is Kincaid being mildly bigoted towards the British in “A Small Place?”

2.      What do you think of tourism in the Orange County and Los Angeles area? Is it helpful or hurtful to you as a resident?

3.      Does reading “A Small Place” make you want to visit Antigua or avoid it?

I would like to focus on the passage in Kincaid’s, “A Small Place,” that inspired question number two. In this vivid and elaborate piece of writing, Kincaid says; “An ugly thing, that is what you are when you become a tourist, an ugly, empty thing, a stupid thing, a piece of rubbish pausing here and there to gaze at this and that, and it will never occur to you that the people who inhabit the place in which you have just paused cannot stand you, that behind their closed doors they laugh at your strangeness (you do not look the way they look).” She goes on ranting a little more, but later defends these annoying visitors when she says, “For every native of every place is a potential tourist, and every tourist is a native of somewhere.” I found this type of negotiating technique rather enjoyable because this is exactly how I feel about the constant tourists that I get to encounter daily. This feeling of "do I loathe or love 'em" is what I'd like to elaborate on.

I live in the beautiful and quaint city of San Clemente. It is almost always quiet and not overly crowded until the spring and summer. Then it’s like a bomb went off that spewed thousands of tourists about, over-running the once seemingly quiet streets. I understand that this is a needed revenue boost for the city, but it always makes me want to pull my hair out! They take over the beaches (the one’s I like to surf at). They drive around like they have no real destination in sight and cause massive traffic jams. However, as annoying as these out-of-towners seem we need to (myself included), understand that just as Kincaid said in so many words; we have or will become, a tourist at some point in our lives.

I thoroughly enjoyed this reading by Jamaica Kincaid. It made me stop and think about how to prepare for my frustration level with the looming spring/summer season. I have to remember how stupid and annoying I must have been when I visited all those other countries. It helped me to realize that I need to be a little more patient with tourists and to see the positive side of their invasion.

 

"Commentary #2"

Jeanna has clearly organized her thoughts in to a well written critique about Christopher Hitchens “Believe Me, It’s Torture.” Her main success was evaluating the strength of Hitchens persuasive techniques. She uses specific examples from the article to demonstrate how he persuaded us to see that “waterboarding” is indeed a form of torture. Jeanna states, “…Christopher Hitchens successfully utilizes the appeals of pathos, logos and ethos to paint a complete picture of his persuasive stance against the policy of waterboarding.” In this first paragraph she sets up the rest of the critique perfectly. We know what to expect from Hitchens’ writing and from Jeanna’s perspective on his rhetoric.

I particularly liked how she sets the stage for us by giving a brief history on Vanity Fair and the audience that it publishes to. She gave us detailed background of the magazine to allow the reader to further understand when and where this incident took place. It’s a visualization technique that I appreciated. One thing that she could add would be the year that the article was published. This would complete the elaborate scene she is setting up for us.

In addition she gives a short synopsis on Hitchens himself which allows us to feel connected with the author. Knowing a bit about him gives us a better understanding of who is

writing about this controversial topic. The only criticism I have about illustrating his character is that she needs to condense two portions of this together at the beginning of the critique. Jeanna states that; “He describes himself as a ‘wheezing, paunchy scribbler’ and notes his smoking of ’15,000 cigarettes I had inhaled every year for the last several decades.’” This was a fantastic use of imagery, but I felt that it could have been better utilized at the beginning of the critique when discussing Hitchens character initially.

The main thing that I would recommend Jeanna to work on would be to let the reader know which specific example is affiliated with ethos, pathos and logos derived rhetoric. For example, in the middle of the critique, she goes on to explain how Hitchens talks about the actual signing of the documents which allows him to undergo the “waterboarding.” This is a terrific example, but what form of persuasion was he using? If she sets up every paragraph this way she has a superb critique in my opinion.

All in all, Jeanna thesis evaluating Hitchens article is structured and well written. Her body of the paper is evaluates all three of the strategies ethos, pathos and logos. With her adding specific points that I discussed this will be a successful critique. I felt as if she fully understood what he was trying to persuade us to feel. Overall, her thoughts about the success of Hitchens argument are concise and they support her thesis in regards to the rhetorical effectiveness of the text.

           

Rhetorical Critique on Andrew Sullivan's "What's So Bad About Hate?"

"The Black Beast That Lives Within Us All"

            Hate is such a powerful and ugly term. I actually can’t stand the word. I do everything in my power to say “strongly dislike” or “despise” before I actually drop the “H-bomb.” These words all refer to the same despair that associates with “hate” yet they feel a little gentler to me. And although the uninhibited use of this word is something I strongly disdain; it exists whether I, or anyone else, approves of it or not. After reading Andrew Sullivan’s “What’s So Bad About Hate?” I began to realize that hate does not possess the same meaning as it did in the past. With the fear of hate came new laws that have taken away the right of free deduction. Not only are they classified as hate crimes, but they are now even classified as “thought crimes” as well. This article persuaded me to believe that hate crimes should not exist in modern society. Sullivan allured me by using arguments mainly derived from the practice of logos and ethos. In addition, he drew up some dramatic imagery using pathos influenced stories.

            This article sucked me in within the first and second paragraph. Sullivan starts off using a pathos driven example of the death of James Byrd Jr. “Pathologists at King’s trial testified that Byrd was probably alive and conscious until his body finally hit a culvert and split in two.” I was this happen to Byrd in my own mind as I read this. It was a poignant way to approach the beginning of Sullivan’s argument. He goes on to say, “…the moment when fear and loathing became hate, the instant of transformation when King became hunter and Byrd became prey.” This spoke to me because I am always drawn to the emotional approach used by an author. Aren’t we all prey when victim of a crime? Whether it is a racially biased crime or just a “crime,” we are all prey. There are so many bad people out there ready to commit malicious acts and we must be aware of it whatever race we may be. This Pathos driven example he used set up the article well to me.

Sullivan is not condoning hate in this article. I can see how some might perceive it that way, but I believe he is defending our right to possess our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. I have always used concrete facts to change my mind when undecided about certain things. I’ve been torn over how I feel about hate crime laws for some time now and this article helped to open my eyes. I have to say that Sullivan uses some persuasive logos appeals which grabbed my attention. One example he uses talks about a group of men from Jamaica Bay, Queens. Sullivan elaborates that, “Almost everyone there is white, and in recent years a group of local volunteer firefighters has taken to decorating a pickup truck for the parade in order to win the prize for ‘funniest float.’ Their themes have tended toward the outrageously provocative. Last year, they called their float ‘Black to the Future, Broad Channel 2098.’ They imagined their community a century hence as a largely black enclave, with every stereotype imaginable: watermelons, basketballs and so on. It was caught on videotape, and before long the entire community was depicted as a cauldron of hate.” These honest (but maybe a little clueless) men, who had no record of bigotry, were accused of being racists. As tasteless as their float may have seemed, to label them as racists without proof is supremely unreasonable and presumptuous. This story showed me that when dealing hate and the ideals that go along with it, we have to pay the price of assumed prejudice. People have become overly sensitive to things that used to be deemed as silly and fun. Although it did seem a bit tacky, I don’t believe those men were wearing white cloaks in their spare time. Sullivan was using this example to explain that there is a certain backlash to bringing so much attention to race laws and such. All he was saying was now a gaudy (and possibly insensitive) parade float turns even innocent men into racists. It seems kind of unfair to place such extreme judgment on people no one really knows.

Furthermore, to bring race into the picture when examining an everyday crime only divides us as a society even more. Hate is part of being a human being and it comes with a myriad of other emotions as well. As ugly and sinister as this emotion is, it exists within us all. This hate divides nations and even families and drawing massive attention to it with hate crime laws is fueling us to be increasingly skeptical of other people different than us. It simply draws focus to a feeling that needs no additional attention. Sullivan states with ethos driven rhetoric, “Hate is everywhere. Human beings generalize all the time, ahead of time, about everyone and everything. A large part of it may even be hard-wired. At some point in our evolution, being able to know beforehand who was friend or foe was not merely a matter of philosophical reflection. It was a matter of survival. And even today it seems impossible to feel a loyalty without also feeling a disloyalty, a sense of belonging without an equal sense of unbelonging. We’re social beings. We associate. Therefore we disassociate. And although it would be comforting to think that the one could happen without the other, we know in reality that it doesn’t.” This is the paragraph that persuaded me to understand how hate is demonstrated in a logical thought process. It made me realize that it is simply part of who we are. So then why is hate put into so many needless categories?

An interesting tidbit of information I found on the Internet proclaimed to me that a crime against another human being is just that; a crime against another person, not a specific race. The hard evidence submitted to us by the FBI in 2009 states, “…61.1 percent of all hate crimes were committed against persons, while 38.1 percent were crimes against property.” To me, this is staggering proof that bias-motivated crimes are purely nothing but man against man if you take race out of the equation. Murder is murder and a crime is a crime. To classify it as something else is a waste of our judicial systems time and money.

In addition, hate crime laws extend prison time by increasing sentencing and further congest the system. Our jails are overcrowded enough and hate laws are most certainly not helping. Furthermore, these laws categorize us into even deeper separation as a species. This in turn ignites increased backlash in the race war itself on the streets and in schools. To place us into sub-categories is preposterous and a waste of time. We are all derived from the same genetic make-up for the most part and it’s time that laws against violent crimes go back to their simplest form. I understood what Sullivan was trying to say in that although hate is inherent in humans, it’s time we stopped placing so much attention on it to possibly eradicate it. It’s not that he was advocating the acceptance of hate; it’s simply that he believes we need to accept it as part of who we are.

Overall, this article helped me to understand hate laws a little better through ethos, pathos and logos driven appeal. I came to the conclusion that hate laws probably aren’t helping things as much as we would have liked. And the U.S. government isn’t going to get rid of them. I’m sure Andrew Sullivan ruffled some feathers when this article was published and I didn’t agree with everything he said. However, I did concur with the overall message that he was trying to convey. He states, “…there is no solution to the problem. There is only a transcendence of it. For all our rhetoric, hate will never be destroyed. Hate, as our predecessors knew better, can merely be overcome.” I loved this final statement, and this may sound strange, but hate must exist to keep us going. I know for a fact that it will never be eradicated, just as war will probably never cease between mankind. I am a realist, and to pretend that a crime against another human is anything more than a primal act is unrealistic. We must stop further distancing ourselves from each other and truly embrace that we are all the same color inside. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Response to "Regarding the Pain of Others"

1.       What do you believe in with regards to the family of a deceased soldier whose picture (during torture or death) is telecasted or photographed; is it hurtful and degrading to the family? Or is it our “right to know” about these sort of events?

2.       If you are opposed to war photography and the displaying of violent images; should a law be placed to ban all forms of media associated with death and war?

3.       Is the slight control of war photography and the mass media that accompanies it a type of censorship? Is censorship justified if it is causing pain to others?

 

I would like to discuss question number one  that I asked from my thoughts on Susan Sontag’s “Regarding the Pain of Others.” It seems to me that she views these images as something that should not be put out there for anyone to see. I agree, it’s atrocious that a mother may have to see her son brutally tortured and killed online over in the Middle East. But in war and conflict there is always and most certainly, tragedy and death. I have a hard time seeing the "face of death" and the unjust killing of the innocent and brave soldiers, but I strongly believe it is our “right to know” what is happening in the world around us. I understand that it is gruesome and painful for the families of the victims to see these images. However, it’s the freedom of the press and media in the First Amendment that seems to make these images surface and sustain. Undoubtedly heart-wrenching as this may be, I think as it stands, the citizens of the world have a right to see these things.

The main reason I feel this way is because of how much violence and death we witness every day in the media.  Over time we have become quite desensitized as a species through the media. Whether it be on television, magazines, or in video games; violence is everywhere.  So is it so bad that some feel as if they have the right to look at these things? I agree that these acts of violence are impossible to look at sometimes, but it’s our right to look at them or not if we choose. I can turn the television or computer off if I become disgusted with something that I don't like or agree with. If it were to come to a point where these kinds of artistic and journalistic expression were banned or censured; then it’s simply denying us the freedoms granted to us to think and act like free people.

In addition, for us to turn our backs on the horrendous acts of war is like living in ignorant bliss. To stop looking at a picture and pretending it’s not happening isn’t going to cease or prevent it. Man has been brutally killing each other for hundreds of thousands of years as a species. It’s unfortunate that because of modern technology it’s being documented so vividly and voraciously and in return causing pain and suffering to the victim’s families. But to turn our backs on the deceased and censor the viewing of their demise is not only an insult to their memory and struggle; but it is simply taking away our “right to know” about current events; even the gruesome ones.

In conclusion, as hard as it is to witness sometimes, I believe we need to observe these things in order to grow as a species. My heart does most definitely go out to the families of the deceased and I pray for the pain they feel. But these images are ours to see and they have the choice not to view them if they so choose. To truly understand what it is to live as a human being, one must embrace death as part of the inevitable. As disgusting as these images are, it cements the fact that these things can and do happen. War is part of the history and evolution of man and will not end, probably ever. It’s better to know and prepare for what may lie ahead by examining our past mistakes.

Logic vs Hate

1.    Elizabeth Young-Bruehl wrote in “The Anatomy of Prejudices” that hate is classified into three distinct kinds of hate; “obsessive, hysterical and narcissistic.” Can hate be classified as anything but “hate” itself? Do you think she was justified in her classifications?

2.    We FINALLY elected the first African-American President in history! Do you think it’s helped us be more tolerant of other races? Or did it make us feel like we’re “making up” for slavery and all the horrors we put them through as a race?

3.    Was Andrew Sullivan on point or wrong by saying: “A free country will always mean a hateful country?” Explain.

 

This was by far the best article we have read so far! I couldn’t agree with Sullivan more than when he said that: “A free country will always be a hateful country.” To some this may sound insulting, mean and depressing. But think about it…WE ARE A FREE COUNTRY!! Isn’t it our right to hate or love whatever or whoever we may choose?!! I should think so. Don’t go out murdering people or anything, but think and say whatever you like…please! I miss hearing white people being called “Crackers.” That’s what we are right? Our founding fathers would be flabbergasted at all these new “hate laws” that place innocent people (most “hate crimes” don’t involve violence) in jail. Our ancestors came over here to be free of England and religious persecution.  So why then is “hating” on someone, whatever the reason may be, a crime now? Isn’t it just clogging up our jail system with people simply practicing their “freedom of speech” as stated in the First Amendment? It’s a pretty sketchy thing to talk about and there are so many variations and levels of “hate” when involved with committing a crime. But to take away anyone’s right to act or think as long as it doesn’t involve injury or death is unconstitutional. This practice is often referred to as Libertarianism, and it ain't such a bad idea! And as long as there is hate, we have love. Isn’t love the most beautiful single emotion in the Universe?! Don’t we all yearn for love? There is a yin and yang to the Universe that cannot be touched without chaos ensuing. Sullivan says in closing: “In some ways, some expression of prejudice serves a useful social purpose. It lets of steam; it allows natural tensions to express themselves incrementally; it can siphon off conflict through words, rather than actions.” I totally concur with him on this. I’m not advocating people freely and violently expressing ultimate hatred! It just makes sense to me what Sullivan was trying to say. We can’t bottle up our natural emotions inside that we feel towards other people different than ourselves. We are expressive and free beings that are not going to change. And to ask us to do so is silly. Call me crazy, a lot of people do; but I think Andrew Sullivan was dead on with this article. Enough said.

Essay #1: Final Draft

                                            

                                            A Grim Future for Generations Y and Z;

                                                     And The Glory of Escapism

            Not too long ago, I read a fascinating article titled “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex.” In it, Camille Paglia argues that Lady Gaga is the reason that music and its image are, for the most part, going to hell. It raised some poignant questions that were discussed and one was brought up in class that I’d like to talk about: “Is the overwhelming success of a celebrity like Lady Gaga indicative of an underlying emotional problem with the youth of today?” What actually defines having an “emotional problem?”  Generation Y and Z are described by Judith Warner, author of We’ve Got Issues: Children and Parents in the Age of Medication as: “Entitled, spoiled, unmanageable, unable to take criticism, profoundly narcissistic, deprived of a sense of agency, unwilling to work, supremely confident, irrationally exuberant, an example of group psychosis, headed for a major crash, overconfident, jobless, dissatisfied, off-putting, entitled (again), lacking humility, hard to take, not necessarily maladapted, annoying (yet admirable), and egotistic.” That was brutally honest and I hate to say it, but I agreed with a couple of those traits described. Nonetheless, I don’t agree that these would be classified as “underlying emotional problems.” Also, a lot of young people today are being accused of having “detached” from society and reality through technology, fantasy movies, fantasy novels and video games. I don’t believe it’s that they have “emotional problems” but that they are merely trying to escape reality for a bit to forget about the current state of affairs in the world. Lady Gaga and her “Little Monsters” prove to be a rare breed, I will give them that. And some may call that fantasy world she’s created as having an “emotional problem”, or using an “escape mechanism.” But it’s clear to me that other avenues are more popular amongst younger generations in order to “escape.” That’s the main topic I’d like to discuss.

 It’s hard for me to continue talking about this without feeling a small sense of hopelessness. I watch the youth of today strolling around campus and elsewhere and really feel empathy for their cause. They have an unyielding road ahead of them. When I say “today’s youth” I’m referring to Generations Y and Z.  Generation Y is defined as people born in or after 1980 (Geck 2). Youths born in or after 1990 are members of the newest net generation (Geck 1). This “net generation” is often called Generation Z and they have a cloudy destiny awaiting them. No generation has suffered more from the Great Recession than the young. Median net worth of people under 35, according to U.S. Census, fell 37 percent between 2005 and 2010; those over 65 only took a 13 percent hit (Girod, Shapiro 2).  In other words, the Baby Boomers, those between the ages of 48 and 66, have set up an ugly world for the young. Our economy is at its worst since the Great Depression. Terrorism is still quite prevalent and has dramatically changed our way of living. There are threats of nuclear attacks from North Korea and Iran. And now, even meteors are falling from the sky and have become an actual threat! So not only do Generation Y and Z have these terrifying things to contemplate and face, they have to go to school and then try to find work and be positive about their future! But even that is virtually impossible. Their indebted parents are not leaving their jobs, forcing younger people to put careers on hold. Since 2008 the percentage of the workforce under 25 has dropped 13.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while that of people over 55 has risen by 7.6 percent (Girod, Shapiro 2). So with all this in mind, it’s safe to say that the reason these kids are trying to escape from reality isn’t because they are selfish and detached, as some have said; but because of an ever growing need to forget about the real world for a bit. Some call it “escapism” but I like to refer to it as “weathering the storm.”

            So what are a few of the most faddish escaping tools? I’ve chatted with a couple people born after the year 1980 and most of them agreed on one thing. The Internet and music are the outlets used the most. A close second would be smart phones which allow access to entertainment and information at all times. I swear, wherever I go, if I see a person between the ages of 18-34; they have some sort of electronic device in their hands! And finally, I’ve been watching a steady prominence in the appreciation of video games and comic books amongst men, and even women. Most young males spend a great amount of time playing fantasy/science fiction, comic book related or war inspired video games. The delinquency charge has now been passed on to the new media kid on the block: the video game (Ndalianis 1).  This genre is a multi-billion dollar industry and growing. My fiancé is 33 and can’t wait to get home to play the latest Spiderman or Call of Duty game! He says it’s “his way of forgetting about an awful day at work, when he makes little to no money to do anything else.” Young adults are being heavily criticized for their great affection for violent and graphic video games. Some say that this constant feed of violence into the minds of the youth is even the cause of some underlying emotional issues and current shooting tragedies. But I believe it’s a way to forget about the cruel world which is surrounding us. It’s a way to escape and live a different life for a brief moment in time. After speaking with some young adults on campus however, it was evident that the Internet and social media sites such as Facebook were the two most popular methods of “escapism.”

            Close to 99% of the Generation Y and Z population have some sort of social media outlet that they spend countless hours on daily. Honestly, when I go to the library on campus, almost all the students I observe are using a computer. In a recent study on what tools younger students use the most, “As anticipated, results indicated that students frequently use text messages, social networks, blogs, etc., while fewer staff members use these technologies (Quinney, Smith, Galbraith 1).” I have recently adopted this addicting behavior and now can officially say I’m an active Facebook junkie. It’s mindless, fun and I can stay in touch with people I haven’t seen in 20 years! But I think the argument that the older generations are trying to establish is simple. It’s forcing people to connect with each other through the Internet rather than face to face. It’s insulting to a generation that thrived on human contact and nurturing to help see it through two World Wars! It in turn makes the youth of today seem distant and narcissistic. But couldn’t the reason these “youngsters” are constantly on the Internet and other technological devices be that it’s merely what they were born in to and are used to now? Does it not necessarily make them “detached” from society as some say, but instead evolving with modern times?

             For the most part, older people seem to think that Generations Y and Z are adopting all these ways to escape because of other factors, such as having “underlying emotional problems.” I have heard them called selfish, detached and even narcissistic. I did some research and it was almost unanimous amongst a more mature audience. The Harvard Business Review states: “We found that… college students in the 2000s were significantly more narcissistic than Gen Xers and Baby Boomers in the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. The Boomers, a generation famous for being self-absorbed, were outdone by their children. By 2006, two-thirds of college students scored above the scale’s original 1979-85 sample average, a 30% increase in only two decades… The upswing in narcissism appears to be accelerating: the increase between 2000 and 2006 was especially steep.” In addition, “Young people are coddled long after they should start learning that they aren’t perfect.” That was the conclusion of HS, a blogger commenting on an article in The New York Times lamenting the state of today’s youth. “The trouble with kids is that they have an overinflated opinion of themselves because they have been brought up to believe that everything they do is valuable and important.” This was no grumpy old codger, but a young man writing about his own generation (Spinney 1). Spinney goes on to say; Generation Me has drawn some flak. Its members stand accused of being spoiled, arrogant and narcissistic, with an underserved sense of entitlement. College professors complain that today’s students demand constant attention. Employers find is hard to stomach the overblown egos of their young recruits, and therapists say they’re seeing a new generation of patients depressed because they are unable to live up to their own excessive expectations (2). I partially agree with what was said here. I have noticed a trend in their withdrawing from society through the Internet and Facebook. 

There is a most noticeable angst and closed-off attitude towards others that “Gen Yers and Zers” display as well. But I believe this is simply their way of reacting to their challenging environment. I am a very friendly person and being back on campus I notice that most of the younger demographics don’t seem too interested in interaction. They’re either on their phones or tablets and I have only met a few that wish to openly chat with me. They remove themselves and almost do seem “distanced” or “rude.” But I do not believe it’s because they want to be like this and don’t want to engage with me. Just like I stated before, this is a horrible world we are living in now. They don’t have a choice but to act self-entitled and arrogant to make it through! Why not put up a false front of an over-inflated ego? The power of positive thinking is a miraculous thing right? I was born in 1976 and am almost twice the age of most of the other students on campus. I come from “Generation X” and had a very affluent upbringing in the 80’s and 90’s. That’s probably why I’m so gregarious all the time! On the contrary, I feel like these generations have been backed into a corner. They are on the defense daily to protect themselves from all the craziness out there. It’s truly difficult to trust anyone now-a-days! With the competition out there for jobs and the increasing safety threats, Generations Y and Z really have no choice but to act protective and disassociated. It’s a dog eat dog world now more than ever and being brutally confident and apprehensive is not the same thing as being narcissistic and arrogant.

In closing I see this growing trend of escapism as a defense mechanism, not having some sort of emotional problem. The Boomers and Gen Xers (such as myself) should try to remember that these “kids” are merely looking for something to inspire them in an uninspiring world. According to all the scary statistics; the older generations are the reason that Generations Y and Z are struggling to find some sort of release from the stress of modern times. The screwed generation also enters adulthood loaded down by a mountain of boomer and senior incurred debt; debt that spirals ever more out of control (Girad, Shapiro 4). My fiancé is often referred to as delusional and childish for his love of video games. And I have to admit, he is kind of a gigantic child! However, I see it as his coping method to stop thinking about how he’s going to pay all our bills this month because work was so slow. Does this mean that he has emotional problems because he likes shooting aliens on a big HD television? Absolutely not; and nor would he ever hurt anyone in real life. He just doesn’t want to grow up entirely because really, what is there to look forward to? We can’t afford to have a baby right now. We might never be able to have one with the way the economy looks at the moment!

Inevitably, young people are delaying their leap into adulthood. Nearly a third of people between 18 and 34 have put off marriage or having a baby due to the recession (Girod, Shapiro 4) Young adults and teenagers are desperately seeking out some sort of release to deal with the pressure of living and hopefully succeeding in this astringent world. I really do sympathize for them and can only hope that things improve. Banning video games and blaming the current state of affairs in the world on the Internet is not the answer to helping the future of Generations Y and Z. The older generations need to accept the fact that times are changing and to stop being so stubborn and critical. Maybe instead of constantly slamming these young adults for spending too much time on Facebook or smartphones, they should actually help them in some way! Stop complaining about the current rise in sales tax to help our schools and improve our kid’s futures. Instead of buying that new Lexus or boat, donate to your local college. Next time you’re out to eat with all your rich friends, tip your waiter 25% in place of 15%. In this world, it’s the little things that are going to help us move forward. And I pray that these new generations get all the help we can give to see our society through the stormy times ahead.

Stop the Slaughter; Pretty Please?

1. 9/11 was a horrible day in American history and too many lives were lost; it was a slaughter. However, the U.S. seems to respond to situations like we're the only country that has ever been attacked or lost lives. For instance; Pearl Harbor and 9/11 and the wars and bombings that ensued, to be exact. But does the United States think it's justified in it's actions? Do you?

2. Is Sontag almost pulling for the enemy in this piece? Why does she call them "courageous" when it is defined as "a morally neutral virture"? Not many Americans would call the Taliban "virtueous"...

3. What constitutes as a "smart program" for our military? Should we continue on our "self-proclaimed superpower" trip? Or is it time to beef it up because of recent nuclear threats?

As I sit and type this blog, more innocent people have died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. To date, according to costofwar.org, between 152,280-192,550 civilians have died because of our "presence" in that area of the world. It sounds morbid and very shocking, but it's wicked and true. When reading Susan Sontag's "9/11" I couldn't help but think of a question that's been on my mind a lot lately. Why do we continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and slaughter their people? Isn't it enough already?! Haven't we proven ourselves the dominate military force in the world? As horrific and damaging as 9/11 was, is it justified the way we have reacted? This is the main point I'd like to discuss.

So, I'm going to try and "tread lightly" for once in regards to this subject! When I started doing all my research about the corresponding information I'm about to divulge, I started to feel sick to my stomach. I've never known how many people have actually died in most of the "conflicts" we have waged. It's disgusting and truly sad. But are we justified in our defense tactics? Because I'm a proud American, it's hard for me to say. I believe in "an eye for an eye", but to a point! Killing honest citizens that want nothing to do with the Taliban and their cause is unjust.

On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by members of the Taliban. I don't need to go on and further illustrate because unless you've been living under a rock; you know what happened. Susan Sontag in her article for the The New Yorker, "9/11", made some interesting points. However, she was a little too supportive of the Taliban with quotes such as, "courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." I'm sorry; but they were most definitely cowards! They are not courageous and they will never be associated with that word when speaking with most Americans. Taking innocent lives is never, ever courageous!! So why is the United States retaliating in the same way with taking nearly 160,000 innocent lives in the Middle East? Just look at the numbers! We lost a little over 3,000 people on 9/11. But compared to 150,000 plus killed over in the Middle East, it doesn't seem fair! So then, does this mean we are cowardly too? Honestly, we're the biggest "cowardly lions" out there to date! We have lost a little over 6,600 soldiers in "Operation Enduring Freedom" and "Operation Iraq Freedom". It's terrible, I know, but in WWII we lost a little over 291,000 troops and 671,800 were wounded. Atleast that was to take down a crazy man that ended up taking 6 million lives during the Holocaust! Still, a loss is a loss; but most Americans, even soldiers fighting in the current war, don't feel like this is a cause worth fighting for. It's all about oil and money and we need to cease using 9/11 as an excuse. It's just a lost cause; and a majority of our citizens would probably agree with me.

Like I've said before, I'm a very proud patriot and ultimately think a strong military is the best option for us, especially with all the recent threats from North Korea. BUT, enough is enough! 9/11 was one of the worst days ever for most Americans living today, but it is not a reason to go SLAUGHTER INNOCENT women, children and men. We need to fully pull out of the Middle East and stop the retaliation. I think they get the message already! We killed 150,000 people insantly in Hiroshima and Nakasaki in retaliation to Pearl Harbor. It did absolutely nothing but prove that we were the "bullies" of the world, and it seems we've continued this trend in the Middle East. In Japans defense, atleast they attacked MILITARY bases in Pearl Harbor, not a whole city of innocent bystanders. It's time we finished up the "extreme retaliation" and show that we can change as a country. Let's show some kindness and compassion for once. Let the Middle Eastern countries figure out whatever it is their panties are in a twist about! We're not helping much anyways. And it's simply making us look godawful.

Commentary #1

                                             Commentary #1- Janelle on “Individuality”

            The word “individuality” has such a strong misconception these days. What is being true to one’s self may be conceived as being “strange”, or may probe people to ask, “what is up with that dude?” Whether this in on the Internet or just observing people in everyday life, I think Janelle really touched on something here with her essay in response to Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The argument she makes is that it isn’t making us stupid or taking away from our individuality, but rather enhancing it.
            Janelle states that “one of the main reasons that I think some people decide to change their identity is because they feel that they’re inadequate in some part of their life.” This was the most compelling piece of her argument by far. I couldn’t agree more with her about this! Maybe she could have talked a bit more about what ways people change themselves to make up for this. But I enjoyed reading about her friend Becky and her experience on Tumblr. It is so hard out there today to be true to ourselves with all the demands that society places on us as individuals. Also, I think a better way to elaborate on this would be to get some actual quotes from her Tumblr page and the responses from other people on the site. It could be interesting for the reader to know about other gender reversal situations in regards to this discussion as well.
             As far as Janelle’s presentation of alternative views; I thought it was well versed and I like the way she brought another great piece of writing in to the equation to refute her argument; “A Marketplace of Echoes”, by David Weinberger. The only thing lacking here was that there was no quotes from Weinberger. He is a very strong writer and I enjoyed that article. Adding some bold words from his piece would make a big impact to refute that Janelle believes the Internet is actually making us grander as individuals rather than making us all “followers” as Weinberger states. 

             And finally, there is one more topic that is very current that could make her argument even stronger. What types of pressure does the media (television, radio, etc.) place on people to either conform or challenge the ideal of “individualism”? I think the Internet is a great example of how people express themselves, but there’s one more; television. Take a look at the Oscars last night and their host, Seth MacFarlane, the creator of “Family Guy”. He is a controversial man who offends a lot of people with his humor. I was watching the news this morning while finishing this up and couldn’t help but find a correlation with this and the topic of “individuality”. So far, MacFarlane is getting ripped apart by his candidness on Hollywood and many other things. Critics are ripping him apart and calling him classless in so many words. But in true “ MacFarlane” style, it seems that Seth didn’t care and was TRUE TO HIMSELF! He seemed to censor himself a tiny bit, but I thought it was fantastic that he didn’t change who he was to conform to Hollywood’s high standards.

            All in all, Janelle made a strong argument with her essay. She says, "when I hear the word "individual", I think of a single person, a person who has their own special brand of identity." She used key pieces of information to develop this and I enjoyed the reference to her friend "Trevor". With a couple more examples and some more quotes, she is going to have a fantastic way to discuss our "individualism" and how we can continue to build on the ideals that go along with it.

What the Government is REALLY Telling Us...and the TRUTH!!

1. Is "waterboarding" ACTUALLY the only form of "extreme interrogation"? What isn't the government revealing to us about it's methods of "extracting information"?

2. Is every country breaking the Geneva Convention agreement in regards to torturing as stated in Article 3? And is the United States using this method as a training mechanism, like they claim? Or is it a huge excuse to open the doors for other means of torture?

3. How can the United States help in order to ensure the safety of it's soldiers? Should they be "good boys" and be the first to actually STOP torturing prisoners for information? Would other countries follow suit?


*sigh* Where do I begin? Although I enjoyed this article immensely and love this particular writer, Christopher Hitchens, it raised even more questions about the United States that have been brewing for some time. I've had a sneaking suspicion that the United States government hasn't been telling me the whole truth for a couple decades now. As a kid growing up, I was asked to read the front page every day and to report the vital pieces of information I found valuable to my father at night during dinner. My father was a bleeding heart Republican and patriot and former Navy fighter pilot. He strongly believed in a solid education and knowing the truth. He wanted to raise an intellectual woman, not some ingnorant girl. Maybe I was fed a little too much information, because now I'm a total and complete skeptic. Not one of those "crazy, conspiracist theory" people that spend hours on the Web trying to bring the government to it's knees. It's not that I don't love our country and don't believe in what it stands for or any of that nonsense. I'm just hesitant in what I read and believe is accurate. I just think there's definitely some tid bits of information that they choose not to share with me. Whether it's because it's dangerous for me to hear about or might cause a mass hysteria that could bring down our society as we know it; they CHOOSE not to divulge. So when this article was read, I could't help but snicker and ask; is any of this true? Is "waterboarding" a justified and civil technique used in "times of war" to extract information from the enemy? Or is it just an excuse to ruffle up some feathers camouflaged as a training technique for our Special Forces? Here's the thing, I personally am scared to find out. I am a dedicated patriot that believes in the Constitution and other treaties such as the Geneva Convention. I'm convinced that these great men realized these plans to help create and maintain a civil world. Although it doesn't seem to be working so great lately, I imagine that with fair actions from all sides, we WILL see a peaceful society; eventually. Maybe not in our life time, but one day. Call me an eternal optimist, but I hold the idea that there is some good in all men true to my heart. So if indeed the United States is introducing the public to some of the injustices that prevail, such as "waterboarding", isn't it alright to suspect that they might be doing some other nasty things we never hear about? I'm honestly frightened to find out.  I'm scared to think where this could take us. If we start saying it's okay to show a little cruelty to other foreign prisoners of war, then what in the hell do you think they're going to do to us?!! God only knows what we've been pulling for decades and what other countries have been doing too! Have you ever seen some of the torture techniques committed out there? They're atrocious, horrific and sadistic and I could go on and on about, but I won't. I usually don't discuss things such as this on the web. Like I said, I'm scared of what "the eyes in the sky" might think. But because it's for school, I hope I'm cleared guys!! So I'm going to come straight out and say it; we're the biggest bullies in the world. "World Police" since the early 1900's. Need something? The United States has your back!!  So with this came a great ego that has seem to over run the very ideals that this society was founded upon! "With great power, comes great responsibility". Uncle Ben from Spiderman said it best. But what IS our responsibility really? Does it entail lying and bullying all the other countries that don't do things our way?! Doesn't it appear like the only reason we SEEM to have things under control is because we're just big bullies and forcing the opposition into submission? North Korea is literally knocking at our door to stir things up and we just shrug our shoulder and casually say "it's no big deal" or "we have more nukes, we're ok". It's not ok and neither is torturing innocent men that haven't been properly and FAIRLY tried in front of an IMPARTIAL JURY, as stated in the 4th Amendment. And no, I didn't have to Wikipedia that...I know the Amendments by heart. Every young person and proud American should. So instead of continuing on a rant that could last for days, the one point I have to make is that I don't believe hardly ANYTHING our government tells us. I think that "waterboarding" is cruel and unjust and is definitely not the only form of torture we inflict. I went to the London Dungeon in London, England when I was 17. It was awesomely gruesome and terrifying to see how mean humans can be! And I even thought at that young age, "is this what we're really like"?!! In what world does someone live in to believe that we've changed since those times. Humans are vicious beasts and have been since the beginning of modern man, and that may never change. But for our beloved government to sugar coat a legitimate torture method is disgusting. I wish they'd come clean and let us in on what is REALLY going on out there. Because I'm tired of guessing.