Regarding the Pain of Others

Is it wrong to take photographs after they die?

~What are the pros and cons of taking pictures during war or a tragic event?

Should there be a law that only allows a certain number of photographers during wartime?

The technology of the camera has made such an impact on peoples life. In Susan Sontags article “Regarding the Pain of Others,” she talks about the history of media and photography. She dates back all the way to when all you could see in a photograph was a grainy figure and now a day we are able to see pictures completely clear from all the fancy inventions. Growing up with the camera has shown me there can be pros and cons, especially when pictures are related to war or tragic events.

Growing up with the technology of the camera has helped me understand wars and tragic events from seeing the visual image; for example, when hurricane Katrina hit the Atlantic in 2005. I was only 8 years old when this deadly hurricane destroyed towns and killed millions. I knew what a hurricane was, but I did not understand the concept of it and what it looked like after it affected where it hit. I remember seeing pictures in class and it helped me get the visual impact of the entire disaster, which made me have a stronger hurt for the people affected.

I believe pictures provide more pros then cons, because they allow us to see the reality of the war or tragedy. When the media displays pictures, people all around the nation are able to understand what it going on. I think pictures are a good way to connect with other people and the event. However, pictures during war or a tragic event also provide cons. Pictures definitely need to be approved and filtered through before posting them anywhere, because no one wants to see the gory or fearful pictures. For instance, in Sontag’s article she tells about a man Mr. Brady who laid the dead bodies in a dooryard and along the streets in trenches and took pictures. I do not think anyone should ever do something like that and show the picture, because that is a terrible sight to see and is disrespectful towards families of the dead body. Seeing shocking images can scare people from certain places etc. 

9-11 / A few weeks later

1. Why did leaders convince Americans that everything was O.K?
2. Why did the public office feel manipulative?
3. Did the President handle 9-11 corectly?

1. Why did the leaders convince Americans that everything was O.K?

The terrorist attack on the Twin Towers has made such an impact on America. I will never forget the morning it happened. That morning I woke up and did my daily routine and got ready for school, I was only in the third grade. When I got to school, I had no clue what was going on. Once I got into class, my teacher cried while explaining what happened then read us a book about New York. Even though I was so young and it was hard to understand, it was an emotional experience to hear something so horrible for the first time. After reading Sontag’s “9/11” and “A few weeks later” articles on the terrorist attack, it made me wonder: why did leaders convince Americans that everything was O.K? Leaders instantly responded to the attack with a positive outlook with supportive words. For instance, a few Sontag said were “America is not afraid” and “Our spirit is unbroken.” These are powerful words that are great ways to try and persevere; yet, she does not agree. Sontag was openly not for the Bush campaign and describes him as a robotic president. Her comparison to Bush and a robot explains how he is repeatedly telling America everything is ok, but he had no idea. Reactions varied on how the leaders convinced everything was going to be ok. I believe Bush and leaders were telling America everything was ok because they were scared everything was going to blow out of proportion with all of the deaths and damage in New York. They wanted Americans to feel a sense of safeness after all the deaths that shook up people. 

Commentary 1

For my classical argument essay, I wrote a supportive response to Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making us Stupid?” I agree with Carr that the Internet has a bad influence on people’s concentration, making us easily distracted and fidgety. Therefore, I wanted to connect those bad influences to the younger generation of children that are growing up to be obsessed with the Internet.

Shastin peer reviewed my essay. For my introduction, she liked how I began with asking questions that lead into what my essay is about. She recommended rewording my thesis, which I did. I made it more straightforward by listing the three negative impacts Internet has on children. Then she made a couple adjustments to my punctuation. My first body paragraph I talked about some background information on the negative side of Internet use for children with statistics. Shastin said it was good that I stated the statistics in the beginning, so the readers can see the actual numbers to understand that it is becoming a serious problem. For my third paragraph, I explained that the Internet affects social skills and concentration. Shastin suggested for me to split each affect into separate paragraphs to help defend each affect better. With doing that, I was able to give more information to support why I think the Internet has those negative affects and helped support my thesis statement. In my fourth paragraph, I told a story about my younger cousin that is sucked into the Internet. Shastin commented that it was a good way to relate to readers with children, siblings, cousins, or friends. She also made a few grammatical changes. Shasin noticed I only had three sources, so I found a fourth source. I added my fourth source to my conclusion to help wrap up all my thoughts.

Overall, I changed some punctuation and grammar errors and made stronger paragraphs. Shastin said it was a well-put together essay with good points. 

Believe Me, Its Torture

1. Is waterboarding still used today?
2. Is waterboarding torture?
3. Does the treatment of waterboarding actually help the Special Forces?

2. Is waterboarding torture?

Is Waterboarding torture?

Christopher Hitchens article “Believe Me, Its Torture” tells the crazy experience he had “waterboarding.” Hitchens suffered a fear of drowning and wanted to overcome it, so he decided to “torture” himself and do a waterboarding treatment. When being tortured you are usually being punished, forced to say information, or seeking revenge. Overall, I think it is any type of physical or mental pain. The treatment of waterboarding is a very harsh and dangerous way Special Forces used for “Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape.” Although, is waterboarding considered torture? As Hitchens explained his experience being smothered by a damp cloth breathing in and out water and suffering from panic and claustrophobia, I would definitely consider that to be a form of torture. Most torture is obviously not upon request, but for Hitchens case, it was. Even though he knew what he was getting himself into and allowing it to happen, I still consider it torture because he was put through a struggle to live. When anything can lead into death or severe pain, it is most definitely torture. He stated an entry from the contract that said waterboarding is a dangerous activity; people receive permanent (physical, emotional, and psychological) injuries and even death (respiratory and neurological). It is shocking that Hitchens who is not in the Special Forces would put his life in jeopardy to get over a fear of water. I could see why the Special Forces would use the technique of waterboarding to help them practice to survive in any type of horrifying situation, yet I believe people should not be aloud to water board if they are not involved in any sort of Special Force. My reason being is people should not intentionally allow them to be tortured because it is wrong in all ways. Especially for people who are not in the best health; for instance, Hitchens with his smoker lunges. I could not imagine waterboarding or even think of what is going through people’s head while receiving this torture.