Soudabeh Sabour       

Prof. Brown

English 1 B

July 31, 2013

                                                    Commentary number three

          Rachel has written about the problem of bias-motivated violence and/or efforts to combat this problem through “hate crime” legislation. Her thesis statement is “while it is true that crime motivated by prejudice is a moral tragedy against humanity, hate crime legislation is ethically wrong because it flaws the judicial system and throws off the balance of equality. Her introductory paragraph is quite attracting attention of the reader. I liked her title as well. It is catchy. She states that she is not accepting crime motivated by prejudice and the consequence is flaw of judicial system and imbalance in equality. So she has considered the principle and the consequences at the same time. The criteria she talks about is that although laws are meant to deter hateful behavior, but are they really doing that and fixing the problem? Her criteria arguments provide compelling support for her theses. And everything she uses to convince the readers are relevant to her thesis.

In the first paragraph she says that hate crime legislation is distorting U.S. law system. Because the judicial system is based on evidences that can be proven, while finding out whether a crime happened out of motives depends on the criminal’s character and is not easy to be judged. She uses an article called “hate crime” from A Critical Perspective to support her thesis. She thinks it is not easy to find out what a person thinks in order to judge him/her. In this paragraph she focuses on the difficulty of the judgment of a hate crime and how it imbalances the right of equality.

            In the next paragraph she states the effect of hate crime legislation on people of different ethnicity and how this will affect human equality. She quotes an article to support it. She thinks that this law will take the U.S claim of having equality protection under the law, under a big question mark. The flaw of this would be inequality between some people who are more protected than others. I believe she has been successful to make a skeptical mind accept her criteria. And I did not find any area that I as a reader can challenge. And finally she sums up in the final paragraph a summary about the whole essay to convince the reader about her idea.

Soudabeh Sabour

Prof. Brown

English 1B

July 26, 2013

           

                                                              A Discussion that Never Ends

As a child grown up with kittens, I would never think of taking a poor animal’s body apart, especially a cat. I love animals of any kind, but when in my anatomy class I did skin the poor kitty and dissected him, I found out how much it is important to use animals to improve medical field.

I know it might seem evil, but I think life is not romantic as we may expect. It is totally wrong if one thinks that no one should ever suffer in life. It is the nature of life that those who are more powerful will exist and the rest will be gone. Life is a mixture of pain and joy. We just have to try to make it more joyful. We cannot delete pain from our lives. so we have tried to reduce the pain suffering throughout the history. It is a matter of benefit and cost. If we stand the pain of dentistry, it is because we want to avoid a more severe pain later. So it is for a good reason.

            I do not agree with the Christian idea that animals have no soul. They might not have as developed motor nervous system to feel pain as we do, but everything in nature in my opinion has a soul. I also don’t like we humans are more worth than many sparrows. I accept humans are the most powerful animal but not more worth. It is our power and need to survive to take advantage of other species.

            It is a very unfair beneficial interpretation of the soul of animals among some people. This is only playing with words to justify what people do. There are always people to criticize others. 

Soudabeh Sabour

Prof. Brown

English 1B

July 19, 2013

                       
what was he trying to tell us about the Empire?
why he did not follow his own will and let the animal go?
was what he did the only way he could act?

                                                        “Shooting an Elephant” 
                                                          " by George Orwell"

Eric Arthur Blair, known as George Orwell, was born in an English family in India. He worked in police department in Burma when he was young. His life in India caused him to have a special look at poverty in his books. In the story of shooting an elephant, which is a real story of him, he described the totally different life still of the natives and their hatred towards the British people. In this story he killed an elephant unwillingly. As a symbol of the British Empire among the Indians, he tried to show his power, while he felt so miserable inside. In his story he tried to use the killing of an elephant as a symbol of a bad decision made by him as a representative of the Empire.

            He directly expressed his hatred towards the imperialism as he said, “imperialism is an evil thing”. He was forced to do his job, while he was with Burmese and against the British. Working in India let him see the real “dirty” work of Empire from near. But he had no choice. He was young and not well educated and had to no other choice, which gave him a feeling of guilt too. He was between his inside hatred of the Empire and the hatred of the people he was living with. He did not know that the Empire of British is fading and dying.

            One day something “tiny” happens that made a big issue for him. There was a crazy elephant that had killed one Indian and he had to decide what to do. Against his interest he finally had to kill the poor animal. As he said, “Empire did not want to act like that, but they had to”. I think by this statement he wanted to say that when empire started, they did not want to be so tyranny, but it became the nature of it and they had to keep their power at any cost, since there was no way back. He was forced by the people’s eyes to go forward and kill the poor animal. As he said, “, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East.” he felt so helpless, but no other way to finish it in order to keep the empire’s integrity. Because as he said, “. A white man mustn't be frightened in front of natives and so, in general, he isn't frightened.” That had been the real nature of empire, an empty box. Against his will he finally shut the animal just to show he is not foolish.

Soudabeh SabourPrpf. C. BrownEnglish 1BJuly 18, 2013

“Commentary on Rachel Tapper’s Rhetorical Argument”

                                           “It is definitely broken but I am not fixing it”

            Rachel has written a rhetorical argument on Christopher Hitchens’ article of “Believe me, It is torture.”  Her argument starts with a title that conveys her idea that Hitchens has brought about a problem but he did not end up with any solution. Actually I like this types of articles that the writer gives the readers the chance to think and decide at the end, and does not try to dictate his own idea to be accepted, so the article is not one sides. I think this style has more effect, since it makes me, as a reader to think, and does not discourage me from reading it all if I see a dictation tone.

            Rachel believes that Hitchens has been successful in his article on “ waterboarding”. This can be understood in her thesis statement when she states that he has used different types of argument appeals under various strategies to convince her, and she has found and mentioned separately those strategies.

            Her paragraphs start with  a good topic sentence that leads to the rest of the paragraph in the same direction clarifying one strategy of the rhetorical argument. For example, in her second paragraph she named the two ways of Logos being used, unspoken assumption and use of evidence. She believes that unspoken assumption is his idea that “ Waterboarding” is a torture and he rejects it, but he did not directly mention this in his article. He also used evidence and testimony by spending time with the real victims and those who have seen and experienced it like Nance. She brings a quote from him about the evening he spend with Nance that proves her claim.

            She goes on by mentioning the strategies of ethos in Hitchens’ article. She thinks that his experience in Waterboarding is a strong ethos by making him a first-hand experienced, rather than someone who sits behind a desk and writes critics about something.  Individually she mentioned successful examples of ethos he used, like knowledge, fairness and his ability to connect with the readers. Although he thinks it is barbarian to do Waterboarding, but at the same time he shows his respect to veterans and those that sacrifices their lives for us to be safe.

            She supports her claim all throughout her essay that Hitchens has been successful in his rhetorical argument on Waterboaring as a torture and mentions the best use of different strategies he has used to achieve his claim.

 

Soudabeh Sabour

Prof. Brown

English 1B.

7/16/2013

-why do the people from Antigua respect tourists in costume, but not their own people who are coming back from trips?

-why do you think that we still see slavery and unfairness although it seems they have disappeared?

-why does not she forget the past? Isn't it because she wants to be a victim forever?

A Small Place

            “A Small Place” is a sad real life story of a girl, Jamaica Kincaid” born and grew up in Antigua, a small island in the West Indies, in the Caribbean region, in the county of Antigua and Barbuda. In her book, she writes about her country, where she grew up. She talks about the life her people had and the life style of released slaves while their slavery has a new different shape, to some extent even worse. Her wounds are so deep that she still cannot forget and forgive what happened to her and the people who did it.

            The first thing she starts with is the way tourists are treated. Although natives run the costume but they respect and honor the tourists from America or Europe, while they do not respect their own people who are coming back from trips. Why those who have suffered from discrimination, do the same thing with their own people? They are not honest with tourists since the taxi driver tried to charge the tourist much more than what law let him. There were no brand new American car in there. The way the government runs the country is exactly slavery.  People can have brand new Japanese cars, which are known as the most economical cars, but at the same time the use leaded gas that damages the cars. Or they can get loans to buy cars, but not houses. And the car leasing system is controlled by the minister. This type of policy in economy is worse than slavery to me. If you are a slave, you are a slave. But if you think you are free to have a brand new car, but in reality you are treated as a slave, is not fair. How could they be free while they do not have a good sewage-disposal system?

            The bitter language of her, even after years, can be felt throughout the whole story. But I want to ask her why she cannot forget and forgive? Yes, she is right. They have been treated very inhumane. But what is the use of sticking to those bad memories and keep the hatred? I can understand her and I feel very sorry that they have been treated that way. But she had better stop her anger and hatred and try to help her people grow and get the control of their lives.

       
The Pain of Others

why is photography censored?
who do you think is guilty in Vietnam war? 
is taking pictures of wars a good way to show reality?

 Although it is claimed that humans are the most valuable creatures, but there are times that we need to think twice about our claim. During the history there have been wars all around the world, which causes men and women to die, children to be homeless, and lands to be destroyed.

       When photography was invented, I am sure it was planned to record happiness. With the aid of photography and courageousness of some photographers, we can see the scenes of battle fields. Sontag describes the photos taken from some wars, and although she describes them very well, but no picture can transfer the horror and inhumanity that existed there. To my opinion, no matter who starts the war, or what nationalities are involved. War is war. What is lost in a war is the nature of humans.  Yes, wars destroy humanity and bring people to a scale compared to animals. This is how war looks looked from above. It is so heart-rending that the bodies cannot be identified, especially if they are foreigners. I think war is really a slain. 

     The funny part of a war is the biased usage of the photographs. How could photography be a mean to stimulate one group of people’s sympathy for the political purposes?  Censoring the photographers shows the directional aim of it. Sontag says that photography has become part of any war. Here I want to ask why do we want to record ourselves when we fall lower than animals in wars? I have experienced nights when the powers were off because the Iraqi airplanes were bombarding Iran. Have any photographer taken a picture of a frightened kid in darkness? What is the purpose of those pictures taken? Do they make wars stop? Or are they used for business and making money? I doubt any picture or essay stop those who benefit from wars. I hope to see peace and friendship all around the world.

Commentary #1

Soudabeh Sabour

Prof. Brown

7/9/2013

In my rough draft, there was not a real introduction and background for the readers, and I had just started the opposing points of views. For the introduction I wanted to make a tangible example of how getting involved in doing something will help learning, and I came up with the idea of finding cookies in the kitchen.

            I changed my thesis statement a few times, and I finally decided to write my opposing paragraphs and then write my thesis. I wanted to find new theories of learning and relate it to internet and computer as a tool to help and improve learning.

            The theory of individual learning is of my interest, since it seems the best achievement in the field of teaching and learning. I tried to simplify the way neurons handle the information, both old and new ones. In order to make it more understandable, I made the example of Lego’s. Pieces of Lego are like information. A lot of pieces of Lego mean nothing unless they are attached together. In order to assemble them, we need all the pieces, and a plan how to assemble them.  Internet and search engines are like tools to provide building blocks of a Lego house. There is no need to waste the energy of mind and brain to find those pieces. We need to focus on how to put them together and build the house.

            The author is not wrong about his claim if we do not learn how to make use of internet in learning. But I think instead of criticizing internet and technology, we need to inform everyone especially students about learning techniques so they can save time. We all know that even Einstein used about ten percent of his mind and brain capability. If he had access to internet he would have done much better.  So we need to learn how to learn to be able to keep up with the improvement in technology and sciences.

9/11 and a week after
Soudabeh Sabour

Prof. Brown

7/8/2013

-Why American leaders tried to show everything is ok?

-Do you think President Bush is the cause of war and consequently guilty for 9/11 tragedy?

-Do you think it is right for America to bomb the innocent people in Iraq, and no one ever made heart- rending TV shows about them?

I do not like policy and I think it is the worst thing in the whole world. I don’t want to say that United State is guilty to bring this horror to its people, because I believe what public will not know the reality behind political decisions made by governors. I agree with Susan Sontag that it is barbarian not to sympathy with those we lost in 9/11, but why we never saw any TV show of the people who were killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other places where we can trace US army. Media tried to show the event as “cowardly attack to civilization and humanity”, and Susan Sontag believes it is “an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower”.

But I want to look at it in this way. Why should anyone or any country try to be the most powerful at any cost? For sure all countries cannot be the same economically and politically. But why should the most powerful country use its power to start war instead of peace?  I believe the reason of any war is to gain power by getting money, oil and natural resources. Countries start wars so they can sell their weapons for oil and other sources and make those countries involved in war weak and dependent. That is one of the ways power grows. Who cares for those uncivilized third world people whose lives does not count. It is sad but true.

“Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid”

Soudabe Sabour

Prof. Brown

8 July 2013

1)        Can women and men be equal and confronting their foes together?

2)   How can two enemy soldiers be friend and come back together?

3)   What is the true definition of freedom and how an aggressor can disturb it?

  

         In this particular essay I want to talk about how an aggressor could disturb the freedom of people by attacking their country. The tension create during the war time cause the weakness of spirit of people who confronts the aggressor in their hometown and try to defend their citizens.  Freedom is not laying in the dark with mask handy and waits for something to happen.

         The true definition of freedom is being in outdoors and dancing, playing, sitting together without any worries. People should destroy the tyranny or the aggressor to gain their rights and be free like any men and women who lives in this world.

         People who fighting in their hometown to gain freedom are stable because they have a significant goal to defend their soil and their brothers and sisters. This main reasons cause they confronting their foes more powerfully.

         The fist step to get closer to gain freedom is to get free us and try to believe women are equal with man and they do have the same ability that other guys do. If we could enslave ourselves first and do not look down at each other because of different gender. We also can take any tyranny down from the power, because their strength feed by slavery, bigotry and looking down other races. So the only way to combat by our foes is to be a united nation and look our enemies as a person with a common point of view.

         If we believe that the fight is going on is to protect the England freedom. We should get and fought as far as we can on the England side regardless of our gender. Englishwoman should fight eider and defend them. She must lie with weapon tonight to protect her freedom or even fight up with her foes and show the world woman are as powerful as men.

         I wish for a day that no more Hitler’s live in this world.  Freedom is a right for every single person who lives and no one can takes away from someone else.

  

Christopher Hitchens, "Believe Me, It's Torture"

-why was he interested to try "waterboarding"?

-why does he feel proud of trying such an experience?

-Don't you think that torture will never die but changes to different styles?

        power has always been the reason of cruelty and injustice throughout the history. Greed for power never dies in those who are power craving. I believe the cause of torture is fear. In the past the powers were allowed to use any method of punishment against those protesting them. This kind of treating prisoners have still remained but has changed its shape a little. It has become more sneaky. the nature of torturing has remained the same. 

        The best kind of torture which can not be detected and be an objection against human rights is "Waterboarding". It makes the prisoner to feel drowned. It has extreme pain and damages brain, heart and lungs due to lack of oxygen. It may also hurt body physically since the person is fastened to a board and attempting to get released may even cause breaking bones. Most people who have experienced the fear of drowning in the sea will never forget that. Such feeling may hunt people as nightmares during their lives. Imagine such a horrible torture. For sure the mental effect of it will always stay in a person's mind.

        Although there are laws of how to treat prisoners and spies, but security services of countries arresting spies do not seem to follow the laws especially in cases of terrorism. 

       This method seems the best since there will be no obvious injury. Since all countries try to show they follow human right even for prisoners, it is the best option, but the cruelest and most inhumane ever. I hope one day very soon, all the world come to peace and get rid of all cruelties and breaking human rights. Don't you think the more we improve in technology, the farthest we get from humanity?