Vivisection

What are the outcomes of preforming this act on animals?

What does the public think of Vivisection? Is it encouraged? Or demonized?

Is it humane of us to treat these animals as experiments?

      In C.S. Lewis’s excerpt "Vivisection" the conflict of determining whether the act of vivisection which is the experimentation on animals is considered right or wrong. An issue we see in the world is animal abuse and what we can translate this could be to the mistreatment of your pet dog or the testing on live animals for research in disease, cures and mental studies. In this argument Lewis tries to define what we consider what is humane about vivisection, why we promote and justify what  is focused on here is what religious figures define an animal is and from there they determine why it is right to perform vivisection. They seem to conclude that these animals have no souls and there for are gives them the right.

        This is where Lewis puts in a good point in which if we consider animals as soulless that can open a discussion where we can people that we consider soulless. In my opinion I believe vivisection is inhumane and that the outcome is not worth the act. I agree on the fact that what Lewis sates that we how we lose out what we believe that makes us human. We perform this act on helpless animals for our benefit in which we infect them with malicious viruses which cause them pain and suffering. Lewis states that we choose the jungle and with that it brings out darkness inside us the longer we continue vivisection.

Shooting an Elephant

Why did the overall change in attitude to Orwell from the Burmese change when he was planning on shooting the elephant?

Why did Orwell shoot the elephant?

How did Orwell relate Imperialism to the shooting of the elephant?

      In the article "Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell we read about George's plight with a rampaging elephant. George being a police officer in Burma surrounded by the native Burmese has been hated by them. Insulting and abusing him when the chance allows them. Orwell is a firm believer that the occupation of Burma by the British, and the overall aspect of imperialism as being evil and should be condemned.

    In the instance I which he remember a incident of a mad elephant ravaging through markets and homes of the Burmese .While he was tracking the elephant he noticed that a large crowd of the native Burmese have been following him. He proposed that imperialism was what he experienced with the crowd in which he had to impress them and make himself not look weak or foolish.

      But as I was reading I noticed a hidden meaning behind this recollection, The elephant was the symbol of imperialism, how it ravaged though the market stealing the goods of the Burmese merchants which we can translate to how imperialism take the resources of the country its occupying. This elephant pillaged homes and killed a person in which imperialism associates to. When it came down for the elephant  to die it didn't but stay alive after multiple shots, such as imperialism we may think it’s down, but really its behind the scenes clinging to life, trying to hold onto what influence it has created on a nation.  

          Another point I wanted to touch on is the decision of why Orwell shot the elephant. The meaning in why he did the deed just to entertain the crowd could have been a concept of how imperialism works that to be the overseer of these people you have to show that you’re not afraid and to demonstrate power but in Orwell’s case he seem to care about what people thought of him even though he hated them.

   

Commentary # 2

      In this Rhetorical Critique, it is focused on the article"Believe Me,Its Torture". In my evaluation I hav, there a few points I'd like to address. First off since there is no title for this critique I would recommend that before a title is chosen, first figure out the theme and audience this essay is being read to, once that is figured out relate both to find a title that really reflects the true meaning of this critique.

     The argument in this paper is clear and straight, topic sentences are place at each paragraph to provide the reader (me) a little taste before diving in, which I consider a plus to this critique. In some strategies such as kairos, I believe was spent little on and some further expansion may do some good.

 In the ethos portion of the essay some concrete points do show that the authors credibility, there are more than one examples that hardens the writer stance on that Hitchen's article has ethos and that he uses it very well. Pathos which is a the appeal to the emotional side was fulfilled by the writer , but I think that more should be add to stretching this part for example Hitchen’s phobia with suffocating  and how he uses that to create sympathy toward the audience.

          The logical appeal has some very good points, very fluid and really projected Hitchen’s strategy of using logos, also the writer doesn’t have to, but a little expansion on this would be a great addition to this paper.

There is not much to say about this critique, it touched on base with all strategies. The writer made paper that is understandable and provide good incite on this article. Though I did add suggestions, I believe that the writer could make a better paper that he already has if he takes this feedback into consideration.

      

A Small Place

Why does Antigua still cling to its colonel traditions and  past even though they have gained independence?

Why are non native Antiguans seem to be treated better than the natives in there own country?

are we see the a one sided view of this testimony?

      In this excerpt the author Jamaica Kincaid talks about her native home of Antigua which is a island in the west Indies. Kincaid talks about the issues this region has and the overwhelming influence the outside has on this tiny island. The author starts to explains the beauty of Antigua  and with this beauty tourist come to abuse  this. After reading for while I sensed that this reading was slowing becoming hostile. With the author coming down hard on the outside forces that are controlling her homeland.

    She uses and excellent writing technique putting you in the eyes of a tourist ,explaining what you see and what you think, and using the the expression of 'ignorance is bliss" as a centering point on the issue.

She further explains ,that outsiders(tourist), are treated better and are at a higher status then the Antigans in there own country. As what can be seen a paradise is really a neglected island with poor infrastructure,and with politicians that care little for the growth and prosperity of Antigua. Another point I find that strengthen this point is that the culture of Antigua as the author put it has a sort of imported culture, in which the public of Antigua celebrate figures such as the Queen of England's birthday and adopt the certain customs from the outside. The Author has a strong sense of nationalism , she loves her homeland but hates what it hasbecame where business and politics cater to outsiders than investing in the public's interest like hospitals and schools.

     I would have to agree with the author stance that Antigua is unjust and corrupt. There is no equality and the natives aren't being treated first. I would feel the same way if the United States had to adopt England's traditions and celebrate there leaders. These countries that were colonizes such as Antigua, need to get back to there roots and revitalize there culture, they have to put there people first and in that way they can grow. 

Regarding the Pain of Others

Does the censorship of photography or video showing gruesome depictions having an affect on how the public views the conflict or event?

What sort of physiological effects do these photos have on people?

Is the manipulation of the media meant to suppress the public and to keep them unaware if the the conflict or event?

     In this article Ms.Sontang writes about a issue that has very well played a large role throughout history, the question of  the media, and the fallout of the content the media portrays to the public. Sontang starts off on the role of war photography and how through out time has portrayed many things such as might, horror,pride,and hope but today with censorship laws, but is  th epublic getting the full spectrum of how real  war is?

     With what I personally saw in these photos, Sontang mention, that they were very disturbing in a senses, it got me thinking about the conflict hidden behind these photos and why  it happen, it gave me a little taste of what  war is like, that its gruesome and with out mercy. As Sontang explains the limited coverage of wars such as Iraq and  the Falkland by the government , it doesn't shed a whole lot of light on how serious these conflicts are.Its blind the public so there wouldn't be any outrage about these military ventures, people wouldn't comprehend the lose of live if we dint show what was going on , people need to see the bodies and see the death in order to prevent it in the future. 

       What is also is concerning is how we react to the photos of suffering and pain that we see war photography, we don't react to it as we should, we should be shocked but we aren't, we blow it off as some thing that's not real unless we have in the flesh staring us right in the face, and its really saddening that part of what makes us human has been numbed to a point where real horror and gruesome acts are just lines on paper.  

  

“9/11”

In the aftermath of the 9/11 disaster did we focus  more on retaliation than rebuilding?

What role did the media play after 9/11 that influenced the public's view on terrorism and our foreign interest?

Was the rush into war with Iraq a smart decision? and if we took careful planning steps could we have avoided the conflict in the middle east?

          In   Susan Sontag 's article "9/11" we come across a very sensitive subject,an event that sparked  several conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has change a country's outlook on foreign and domestic affairs. In this article the author Sontag's talks about the aftermath of the 9/11 incident, she explains how the media and politicians reacted to this disaster with empty assurances that america is alright and not susceptible to attack. She further goes on about how the administration at the time was rushing and was  willing to  propel the the country into further conflict.

    

           The question I wanted answer about this article is why the U.S launched a war on Iraq instead of conducting counter- terrorist operations such as the author states.This I believe this could of been a smarter move, but unfortunately this didn't happen. In the haste to find out who to blame, we spent billions of dollars and lost many people  in two separate wars that have been the longest we've ever been in. Sontag  I believe had a perfect way we've could of  handle this condition, she proposes that we prepare instead of initiated , that we don't have to throw ourselves into a deeper conflict.Even with all the years that have past the the situation isn't getting any better, the economy is in ruin, the hunt for WMDs in Iraq seem to be a blundering disaster. If this advice proposed by the author was taken seriously we would be off in a better position then we are today.

     

  

Believe Me, It’s Torture

Does water boarding conflict with our laws regarding human rights or are they ignored when used on foreign citizens ?

Is water boarding an effective tool to receive information that would safe guard the U.S and its allies from any outside attacks?

If water boarding is ok to use on the use on the enemy what stops the U.S gov't from using it on its own citizens?

          In the article "Believe Me, It’s Torture" by Christopher Hitchens and issue that has grown very popular all across America is the torture  technique call "water boarding". Water boarding from what I have been told is an act in which a towel is placed on your face while buckets of water are being poured on your head, cause the impression of drowning. There are several debates on whether this practice produces any results or is it conflict with are laws about human rights? In my opinion I believe that water boarding should be outlawed, it’s a very brutal way of extracting information from key individuals and it infringes on our human rights.

     What I've been noticing a lot in Mr.Hitchens article is the relation of terrorist and water boarding, he seems to relate them quite often. I find that due to the up rise of extreme individuals such as these terrorist, extreme measures seem to come out from the U.S to combat this. I find this very interesting because water boarding began as a training scenario to toughen up our special forces but now it being implemented for counter insurgence and intelligence.

            I wanted to also touch up on the point of if water boarding is really producing information that could protect this nation from further harm. As Hitchens sates, Water boarding make participants blurting out useless and sometimes misleading info, it’s not like a technique produces accurate result that other forms like bribery, surveillance and wire tapping.

A very important issue I have with water boarding is that if the gov’t is able to do this to people they want information from what’s stopping them form water boarding U.S citizens? Water boarding is a very serious and brutal torture method and it not only threatens our reputation of a freedom loving country but it could cause a evolution of how information is extracted no matter who is being interrogated.

This is Mr.Hitchens torture experiment on video that he posted, notice the impact of water boarding in just the few seconds he started.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efh_6_-tHgY