"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After" --Susan Sontag

1. Is American really a superpower, like people make it out to be if it was so easily attacked?
2. Is the media being controlled by the government so that the public won't know of attrocities?
3. Does Sontag have conflicting views?

While reading both articles, I couldn't help but feel like Sontag had very conflicting views. In her first article she was highly critical of all media, along with political leaders, and how they were only addressing the fear of the public. She went so far as to say, "whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." I don't know how anyone could say that about terrorists. It seems very unpatriotic like of her to say that, but I know she was just comparing their attack to how everyone else reacted. She also states, "they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management." What else could Sontag expect though? When faced with devastation, death, and loss, wouldn't it be understandable that the public needs a little soothing?

In her second article, well interview, she takes a completely different tone. She talked of how she was stricken by grief . She states, "To not mourn would be barbaric." Well that seems to contradict what was said previously. Her first article seemed to speak out against the United Stated, but her second seemed to speak for it. "To in any way excuse or condone this atrocity by blaming the United States...is morally obscene," believes Sontag. She speaks of how it's a interesting thought that we brought it on ourselves. Doesn't that sound a little contradictory? 

Maybe I'm just taking it out of context. She could be saying that the actions after the attack, how people were reacting, and how the government presented the information was appalling, but that the US itself was not to blame. However, she seems to also have different views on the terrorists themselves. First stating they weren't cowards then stating their righting of wrongs was "shameless pretext." It could be just how I read them both, but she had two completely different tones.

Response to Believe Me, It's Torture

1. Does "waterboarding" classify as torture?
2. Do torture techniques like waterboarding actually get useful information?
3. Are we training our people for something or to resist it?

Christopher Hitchens conducted a very interesting experiment where he himself was waterboarded. His experiences are very vivid which makes his arguments all the more powerful, along with the fact that he himself went through actual torture for the sake of it. He was questioning whether or not waterboarding really is a form of torture. Then he questioned if our people were being trained to resist it or to inflict it. He raises compelling arguments of how, when prisoners were faced with torture and then released that they were then training people on how to survive and resist. Which leads to the question of if these techniques are actually useful of not. Hitchens states , "I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer" (2). The part to focus on is the "any answer." When faced with pain and torture would someone admit to something they didn't do? I know that in a situation of extreme pain being inflicted for information, I would quite possibly admit to anything, even something I would never dream of doing.

My questions are kind of off topic with his arguments, but I think its an important question. As a way of getting information, are any torture techniques actually reliable? I'm sure there are many cases where people have admitted to things they didn't do. Of course I'm merely basing my views off of movies. There has to be some truth in those films right? Maybe the way that it should be conducted is not through questioning, but of asking the tortured to simply talk. There is no possible way to really know if what someone who is tortured says is actually true or not. "It is also a means of extracting junk information" (Hitchens 3). I don't exactly know what Hitchens was trying to get at, whether he advocates it or not.

Commentary for Lily

You offer some good research into actual studies where the Internet does in fact lower our thinking abilities. Although great examples, I feel you could make the paper flow a little better. Transitions between paragraphs could help. In your second paragraph I feel you could add a more thorough analysis of the study. There was only one sentence to really explain how it helps your point of view. Also that first paragraph could possibly be split in two; it was difficult to follow a paragraph that was about the length of the page. Other than rewording a few sentences and adding transitions, I feel your argument and paper are quite clear and get your point across well. You followed the structure of a classical argument almost to a T. 

On the topic of your arguments, I felt they were very sound and compelling. In some places though I suggest stating a little information on who did the studies. This would help show that they have the authority to do so. For example if the people conducting the research worked at a fast food restaurant I couldn’t take their findings seriously. The studies that you found really helped support the claim that the Internet is in fact rewiring our brains. I especially enjoyed the research about our brains showing signs of the same kind of addiction to the Internet as to drugs and alcohol. Following the STAR criteria, your evidence was indeed sufficient, typical, accurate as far as I know, and relevant. Although these four all apply the paragraph about addiction, on page three, could be a little more accurate. Most readers will not know what DCM stands for and what it means for people, I have no clue what it is. Including this bit of information could really help your claim. 

On the subject of your refutation, it was quite fair. I feel you could also benefit here by stating a little background on the people you mention. Which large number of experts? Experts of and on what? Are they experts of the brain or experts of computers? The alternative views you use really help strengthen your paper. I doubt people would take the other side and disagree with you. The way you defended your view against the refutation wouldn’t make me change my mind and disagree with you. With how much evidence put forth, a neutral audience would not likely follow the opposition. The reasoning doesn’t sound strong enough.

What's So Bad About Hate

1. What can be defined as a hate crime?
2. If hate crimes are hate upon generalizations of a group, how is that worse than hate for a single person?
3. Could hate, something darker than "lazy prejudice", save our lives though?

I know it seems harsh to say that hate could save our lives, but hear me out. Andrew Sullivan, author of "What's So Bad About Hate?,"  discusses an incident where if a person hears footsteps behind them they start walking fast. Then looking back they see someone who isn't intimidating like a white woman. Put in this situation, I would react the same. Is it so wrong to judge a situation and people around when there could be imminent danger? Being a petite, young, white female myself, walking in the dark I can't say that I would walk down an alley where there were older, bigger males no matter their race. I think many people do the same. We kind of have to for our own safety and survival. "In some ways, some expression of prejudice serves a useful social purpose" (Sullivan, 10).

Could this even be considered hate either? Sullivan states, "we still have a remarkably vague idea of what it actually is"(2). There are so many kinds of hate; from fear, from contempt, from envy, revenge, from love, of others, etc. How can one define something as a hate crime? It seems to me that the hate crimes one hears of is against different races and people who are homosexual. Or maybe this is just because I don't actually watch the news. Why shouldn't, like Sullivan brings up, crimes against  little kids or that incident where a man killed his fifteen year old girlfriend for not getting an abortion be considered hate? Sullivan states, "The boundaries between hate and prejudice and between prejudice and opinion and between opinion and truth are so complicated and blurred that any attempt to construct legal and political fire walls is a doomed and illiberal venture"(10). If it cannot be defined how can legal measures be taken against it.

RESPONSE TO CHELSEA

I agree that we are becoming more accepting of people, but that begs the question of how far will we go? I hate to use the word, but if we follow with Gaga's example of sex its a little kinky. I wouldn't want people walking around in meat costumes or egg costumes all the time. She isn't the best role model especially for children because she is so concerned with her appearance. Kids shouldn't have to worry about not leaving the house without make-up like Gaga does.

Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex

1. Are we becoming desensitized towards death, sexuality, etc.?

2. Should what Lady Gaga represents and her “creativity” be considered talent or art?

3. How can someone like Lady Gaga be an icon?

It seems that as kids grow up in a world where they are in contact with some sort of media every day, they are becoming desensitized to things that older generations would have found appalling. Many stars and celebrities are capitalizing on this fact and marketing themselves to accommodate this change. Camille Paglia, author of Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex, analyzes the fame of Lady Gaga, a “depthless” “manufactured personality” as she describes her. Lady Gaga is one example of a person that takes advantage of people’s interest in violence and strange behavior. Paglia shares an anecdote of how Lady Gaga, in one of her performances, displayed some questioning behavior. Apparently, Lady Gaga “staged a barbaric spectacle” where blood and violence were the main attraction. Death by chandelier is sure to get more fans must have been the thought going through producers and her mind. Much of Lady Gaga’s appeal centers around violence, danger, and the unknown. Her videos have characteristics of criminal activity. All this in perspective, she still has billions of fans. Paglia also states that there is a blurred line between the sexes.  Rumor after rumor has spread about Lady Gaga being a transvestite or being bisexual or even gay. More people are starting to accept these circumstances and it is becoming more accepted. Other media sources are taking notice too. The news itself tries to keep its viewers by showing the most gruesome stories and focusing on appearance. When watching, I take notice of how done up the anchors are and how almost every single one is young and wears make-up. Of course this is more common with women. 

This question is an important one because when does will it end? How far will our generation go and will everything be accepted? Is there a line that won’t be crossed? These new children won’t have any values or morals because their “role models” aren’t behaving in a way that’s honorable or in any way inspirational.

RESPONSE TO LILY

I agree that there are other things that keep us from reading other than the internet. The television is a major distraction especially for me. I can't count how many times I've spent all day, and i mean literally all day, just watching tv. It sucks you in with how many movies they play one after another. Lifetime movie channel and the Hallmark channel are the worst examples of this. (Keep in mind this is from a girl's point of view) Although people get sucked into the tv and their phones, I think if you give the right person a book the enjoy it would be a different story. When I get a book i usually spend all day reading and do little else so really i think it depends on the person and the book. Carr should be more specific as to what type of reading he thinks people aren't doing because if it was leisure reading he is talking about then he could be wrong. At least using myself as the example he would be wrong.