Saturday, Nov. 8, 2008 Assignment

After reading "The Right to Offend" and "An Orgy of Power", please complete the following:

Give me one thoughtful paragraph per essay. Tell me what your initial reaction was, what you think the author's main argument is, and whether or not you agree.

Comment on one other student's comment. Don't just say, "I agree", but explore the comment; write what you like about it, what you did not agree with, what was good about it, what made you “think” etc.

“A” for thoughtful entries.

Comments

[Robby Ashley]

The first article I read was An Orgy of Power by George Gessert. I was actually surprised when I started to read this article; I did not know that the torture of prisoners was still encouraged by our government. It took me a while before I could ascertain what the writer's argument was. The article seemed like it was more of a report than an argument. It took all the way until the last paragraph for me to clearly understand that he was trying to say that torture will become more apparent and imbedded in our culture the more concentrated power becomes, though he hinted at this throughout the article. Maybe I misinterpreted something in the beginning.

I do not know if I totally agree with the author's argument. It makes sense when you look back at what has happened in history, but it really depends on the nature of the leader. There could be a leader that has total power but does not believe in torture. I did like the sentence "Destruction of the innocent is the most incontrovertible proof of power," and I definitely agree with it (Gessert 78). It would be very easy for a leader to get carried away and resort to torture if they had an abundance of power. Anyone let me know if you think I have misinterpreted something

The Freedom to Offend

This article was a little confusing to me at first also. It felt like the author, Ian Buruma, was just stating facts and examples. (Or maybe my mind is just working slowly tonight.) I agreed with everything that he said though; that people get angry when their race or religion is offended and though in some areas looked down upon anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry still exist. Eventually I got the idea that the author was trying to say that minorities would rather be represented by their own ethnic group or religion and have community leaders than be represented by leaders on a national level. Please tell me if I am wrong. I agree with the author when he says that this "stops people from thinking of themselves as individuals and citizens"(Buruma 26). If these ethnic groups do not want people to say offending things about them then they should join in with the rest of the country and not separate themselves. I especially agree with the authors last five sentences. Immigrants should respect and enjoy the freedoms of our country, especially the freedom of speech, and realize that offending statements are a result of having these freedoms.

[Christine Farmer]

Initially, "The Freedom to Offend" caught me off guard. Buruma began his essay with a powerful story about the anti-Semitic comments Mel Gibson recently made. By using this example in the introduction, Buruma presented the extreme end of his argument. As the essay progressed, however, his article subtly focuses on how easily people ar offended rather than continuing his social equality theme. Buruma allows the reader to fully narrow in on his main idea when he states, "but now immigrants and their offspring must learn that to be offended is the price we must all pay for our freedom of speech and freedom of thought" (Buruma 27).
I completely agree with Buruma's argument that although purposly offending people is wrongful and should be avoided at all costs, the public shouldn't have to worry about whether the smallest thoughts that come from their mouth are "politically incorrect". Our country is based on freedom of speech, and we shouldn't be condemned for how we feel. Now there is a fine line between being opiniated versuses being outright offensive, and it is easy to cross it if one is not carefull. But one should not have to give up their dreams on writing a play or even be killed because he/she used language not on line with what minority leaders want. In addition, I agree that the minority leaders have taken advantage of the subservience of the public in changing offensive language. Often, they go too far in what they believe is appropriate to say.

My initial thoughts toward "The Orgy of Power" were shock and disbelief that events like this actually occur in our society. America, the country known for its acceptance and opprotunity, is a leading member of human torture. To me, one of the most horrific stories was of the cook who broke a prisoner's leg with a metal baseball bat (Gessert 74). The cook of all people had so much anger that he needed to take it out on someone else! I believe the author's main argument is that torture is a product of power. An individual has to have some sort of power before the use of torture can add to his power. I agree with the author when he concludes his argument by saying that the most effective method in preventing torture is to avoid concentrated power (Gessert 84). By limiting the power an idvidual can have, you greatly reduce the fueling effect that torture has on power.

I agree with Robby when he said that he didn't understand Gessert's main idea until the end, so Robby I don't think you didn't misunderstood anything. I liked the quote he used because it built on my my idea that torture is nothing but a fuel to power and is normally acted on when a foundation of power has already been set. However, I didn't like how Robby didn't have confidence in his opinions. Robby, you're a smart kid, believe in your comments! If my opinion means anything, I think you had great ideas.

[Rachel Scala]

I think that the beginning of "An Orgy of Power" was set up well because it allowed the reader to understand who the writer, George Gessert, really is. He then jumps into his story that shocked me at first. It’s hard to believe how many people are still tortured in the world today. I think the story of John Walker Lindh summarizes how the United States deals with torture. The government makes the story out to be something less harmful then it really is and the media buys it, so everyone else is forced to believe the cover-up that the government made. I think that one of the most powerful paragraphs in the essay is the sixth on about the different animals. Gessart made a good analogy to the techniques of animals and humans and ended with saying, “Only humans torture.” The paragraphs about the author not being shocked by war photographs also sums up America. Although our Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, we are numb to seeing the images because they pop up in the news almost everyday. We simply don’t think about the people in them as people, we just think of the people in them as enemies.

Along with Robbie and Christine, I didn’t understand the main point of the essay until the end. It just seemed to me that Gessert was telling stories of torture. But when I found the main idea, I thought that the author was trying to say that power is what leads to someone torturing someone else. The person gets too absorbed in them self and doesn’t think about the other person.

Next up is “The Freedom to Offend.” I did not really understand the first paragraph of Buruma’s essay. I guess I just don’t really understand what Mel Gibson really did, but in the second paragraph, I do agree that anti-Semitism still exist, just on a much smaller scale. I fully agree with Buruma when he says, “…when offense is taken for self-serving reasons, even where none was intended, the guardianship of civil behavior can slip into a form of intimidation, which interferes with free speech.” Sometimes people twist the simplest things to make them sound mean and hurtful just to get some benefit from it.

Like Christine, I think that the main point of this essay is that purposely offending people is wrong, but the public shouldn't have to worry about whether they will somehow offend someone. I agree with this and I think that we all just need to grow up and realize that the majority of the people in the US don’t mean to be racist or to put down minorities, but the minorities are so dead set that they are being put down that everything is blown out of proportion.

[Abbie Novak]

At first, “The Freedom to Offend” was hard for me to grasp. Initially, I was confused and wondered where Ian Buruma was going with his writing. It seemed like he was going off on a random tangent about Mel Gibson and his surprising, disrespectful comments. After continuing to read the article, I realized that Buruma had provided the Gibson example to prove his point. Buruma gave many examples of how strongly people believe in certain things and how easily they can be offended. He gave examples from all different types of cultures and backgrounds and about many different circumstances. I believe that the end of the article was the most effective because it incorporated the main point that Buruma was making: “It certainly was necessary to educate the mainstream of democratic societies …Since many immigrants come from places where such freedom does not exist, they should be the first to appreciate its benefits” (Buruma 27). I absolutely agree with his point. We are blessed to have the right of freedom of speech and we should not be looked down upon for what we say although, we should always try to be polite. We should be able share out thoughts in ways that are not offensive to others. On the other hand, those who are offended should remember that we have the right of freedom of speech and that our thoughts are our own. Immigrants are privileged to the opportunity to live in America, a stable, well-rounded country, and they should respect our society. It should also be noted that people, of all races and religions, should remember that no matter the country or situation, there will always be others who are unwelcoming to differences. Freedom of thought is infinite.
I was stunned while reading “On Orgy of Power” by George Gessert. This article was surprising and disturbing. This article gave me a does of reality; I was totally unaware that torture and “abuse” still occurs in our society. Although this article was alarming, it had a strong impact. It was very surprising when Gessert stated, “Lions and hyenas kill swiftly. Housecats play with their victims...Only humans torture” (Gessert73). I never would have thought of this comparison, but it really stood out and was interesting to me. The Abu Ghraib story was shocking; it made me cringe. I could never picture this and I think it is horrible that anyone would ever (in their right mind) think that harming an individual like this or in any way is ok. The story involving Ghraib also portrays the main argument, “The more concentrated power becomes…the more embedded the practice of torture will become in American life” (Gessert 84). This is a scary thought but, I agree with this claim that the more powerful a group is, the more torture will occur because there are fewer people to oppose it.
Like Robby, “I did not know that torture of prisoners was still encouraged by our government.” I did not realize this either and it really made me think a little more about the issue. I also agree with Robby that the “The Freedom to Offend” article was quite confusing and that the main arguments in both articles were in the conclusions. Robby and I are in agreement about the comment that makes the statement about the destruction of the innocent.

[Kelsey Pollard]

Initially, Ian Buruma’s “The Freedom to Offend” was extremely shocking. He begins his article with a well known outburst against Jews by Mel Gibson that catches the reader’s attention and draws them in. I found Buruma’s ideas hard to follow, but I liked that he gives many examples of his main point of how many people are not able to say what they think because they are afraid they will offend someone of a particular race or religion. I agree with this because I think our world has become too preoccupied with offending others. It’s no longer “politically correct” to say Merry Christmas to someone because they might be offended if they do not celebrate Christmas, or call someone Black and not African-American (even if they are not from Africa). I don’t think that we should be cruel when discussing other religions or races, but we should be able to say what we think in a kind way without being worried about how others are going to take it.

I found George Gessert’s “An Orgy of Power” very eye opening. I never realized that our military and government used torture so often when interrogating individuals. Gessert’s reaction was the same as mine when he said, “I believed that torture by Americans existed, but involved very few people and played a very small role in American foreign policy” (79). It was disturbing to realize that pictures and videos of these tortures can be viewed on the internet like those from Abu Ghraib. I think Gessert’s point in writing this article was to inform the public about the prevalence of torture and also how, “The more concentrated power becomes, the fewer the obstacle to extremity, including torture” (84). I think that this means that the more power a person or a group of people have, the more dangerous they become. I agree that this can happen and we need to draw lines and decide what is right and wrong.

I think Christine did very well in analyzing the first article. She differentiated between the theme of the introductory paragraph and the rest of the article which is something that I had not noticed. I also agreed with her comments about freedom of speech and how we should be able to say what we feel. Her last observation about how “minority leaders have taken advantage of the subservience of the public in changing offensive language,” made me think. I hadn’t really even thought about that and I think that it is true. What is appropriate to say changes and leaders promote that change.

[Katie Phillips]

The first article that I read was An Orgy of Power. I found this article to be quite disturbing because I did not know that this kind of thing was still going on taday. I think that people don't realize that things happen like this until someone like Abu Ghraib provides evidence like photographs and then this evidence is printed or aired on television. It is crazy to think that America has engaged in torture when we oppose to cruel and unusual punishment. I agree with Gessert in his statement "The more concentrated power becomes, the fewer the obstacles to extremity, including torture"(Gessert 84). I didn't quite understand what Gessert was getting at in the beginning of the article, but as I kept reading, the veiw became more clear and concentrated, and just like Robby said, the last paragraph put all of the peices of the puzzzle together. When a power is less concentrated, the torture slowly goes away. There always has to be a source of power. I like the quote that Abbie wrote from page 73 because it sums up the article in an effective statement.

In The Freedom to Offend, Ian Buruma uses many examples of how people get offended by their religion to prove his point, just like George Gessert used many examples to explain his argument. Just like Buruma, I think that it is outrageous that we should be having an "updated list of appropriate words for various minorities"(Buruma 23). I don't think that we should have to moniter eveything that we say, but rather say what we feel without hurting anyone. I really liked how Kelsey brought up how it is not "politically correct" to say Merry Christmas to someone because they might not celebrate that holiday. This shows to what extent people are goig through these days to try not to offend people. I also like the statement that Christine said " there is a fine line between being opiniated versuses being outright offensive, and it is easy to cross it if one is not carefull." This states how people try to moniter what they say, but sometimes things may slip out without thinking about what the person is that is listening.

[Robby Ashley]

Christine and Rachel's comments helped me to better understand "The Freedom to Offend". I agree with Christine when she said that one should not have to abandon his or her dreams or worry about what they say because something might be offending to someone. Minority groups(the ones that take everything as an insult) need to suck it up and realize that not everyone is out to get them. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and it should not be taken for granted. It is ok if something is unintentionally offending, but no one should try to offend anyone else.

[Emily Law]

After reading Ian Burama’s “The Freedom to Offend”, I agree with his arguments and points that he makes. Initially, I was a little bit confused on what he has trying to say but as I continued to read, it became clearer to me. I agree with Buruma’s main argument that some groups of people take too much offense to statements made about their groups and this should not be this way. People should not have to be so worried about what they are saying, because after all, we do have freedom of speech. Of course, however, one should never purposefully make offensive statements towards groups and minorities of people. Buruma supported his argument very well with multiple specific examples. One of my favorites discusses the issue of anti-semitism and how because of the number of instances that people have been offended by comments about Jews, it is hard to talk about it at all anymore without someone being offended: “But this particular whistle has been blown so often and with such shrillness that exaggerated anxiety sometimes impairs serious discussion” (Buruma 24).
George Gessert’s “An Orgy of Power” was a real eye-opener for me when I read it. I was not aware that this kind of torture and punishment still takes place as a result of American actions. Gessert’s argument, that torture is a product of the power a group or country possesses. This does make sense because America is an extremely powerful nation and is a major player in human torture. Gessert uses multiple examples that are quite disturbing to reach his audience and get his point across.
I agree with Abbie’s comment about the end of Burama’s piece. His statement about “immigrants being the first ones to appreciate freedom” is very effective in proving his points. I also agree with Abbie’s statement about Abu Ghraib and I completely agree that it blows my mind that someone could believe that this kind of treatment is acceptable.

[Katy Ebert]

I found “The Freedom to Offend” to be a confusing article. Ian Buruma starts by writing the story of Mel Gibson’s drunken rant of anti-Semitism and that the fact that after he got out of jail he when to Jewish leaders to heal himself. I thought that it was weird that instead of being appalled at the hate of a certain race he was actually appalled at the “community leaders” who agreed with “helping” Gibson. I initially thought that the writer was crazy to think that the people of a minority shouldn’t be hurt by the judgments people make about them. He stated that people have the right to freedom of speech and opinions. But does that mean people should just say whatever they want and not care who it is affecting? Apparently Buruma thinks so. I did agree with him when he said that people are sometimes too afraid to talk about touchy issues. Bigots and prejudice is created by prejudice and if we aren’t talking people the issues, no one will ever learn. I also agree with him about “community leaders” and how they only fight for what they want without taking under consideration the rest of the community. They are only interested in what they want, which costs lives and dreams. I believe that Buruma’s main argument is that minorities shouldn’t be so hurt when others state their opinions about them and that their leaders should not be the deal makers of the community. I understand where he is coming from but I think that he is being insensitive to what some minorities have had to go through. On one hand, I think people should keep opinions to themselves if they know it will hurt someone, but then on the other hand, this country is based on freedom of speech.

I thought “An Orgy of Power” was a disturbing, yet eye-opening article. When I think of war I normally don’t associate torture with it because I only think of those who have died and those who have survived. I never took into account the number of survivors who had to endure unbelievable amounts of pain that leave them with emotional scars for the rest of their lives. I found it disgusting that some many times, our country resorts to torture. Although it is an effective way to retrieve information, torture is completely unethical. Those who take out their stress by breaking someone’s leg with a metal bat are disgusting and need help. It is shocking to hear people say that a form a torture can be compared to a fraternity prank. I think that George Gessert’s main point is that America has become to okay with the use of torture. We are shown it with pictures, we hear about it in the media, and we read it in books. I completely agree with Gessert’s ideas. America has become numb to the idea of torture and don’t care to distinguish between what’s right and wrong.

I thought that Abbie’s analysis was great and I agreed with most of the things she wrote, but one thing stood out to me. I didn’t agree with her when she said that immigrants coming to America should respect our society. In the beginning, most come because they have high hopes for success in the land of the free, but when people are constantly putting down their culture, it is hard to have respect for that. I agree that people have the right to their opinion and freedom of speech, but some people go too far. It is a privilege for people to be able to come and live here, but shouldn’t the people who were born here also see it as a privilege and not take advantage of it? And isn't this country unstable if there is still bigotry and prejudice?

[McKenzie Smith]

Horror, disgust and trepidation are all words that came to mind when I read An Orgy of Power. Just the title gets you. For a while after reading, I was too stunned for words and wasn’t sure if I agreed or not. I could barley comprehend what I read much less decide if it was something I agreed with. From personal experience, I am a very emotional person, and I feel for people. To know that there are some people out there who enjoy terror and torturing people is just beyond me, I don’t understand it. I believe the author did a phenomenal job in evoking a sense of shock and horror at the thought of torture as means of obtaining information from others. I can’t imagine what it takes for a person to sink so low as to find that pleasurable or even to find that it was ok. Even still, I am beside myself with shock that I am not even sure if I can find it believable or not. I know I have been a very sheltered child my whole life, and I understand that this kind of stuff is out there, but I would rather not be exposed to it. I would rather be naive as to what is out there then spend time to research and read about it. Because I have never been exposed to this, I am finding that I do not agree with it. I am sure that this happens, but I can’t see it on as grand of a scale as the article described.

The freedom to offend was a very frustrating article. Forgive me if I am not a literary scholar, but I found the opening paragraph about Mel Gibson was outlandish and didn’t flow with the rest of the article. Even the article itself did not seem to flow. It was not an easy read. But perhaps that is the point that the author was trying to make. Maybe, because this was such a sticky and confusing article, he purposefully wrote it this way. Perhaps this is a work of literary genius and I am not up to par with the intellectual minds of today. With that aside, and after I got over the frustration of the reading, I found the article to be very informative. I do not agree with the article thought. My dad has brought up a good point though. **I always let my parents read the articles that we read in class, to technically, some of my points are what my parents think and not mine, but I agree with them. ** He says that there are organizations out there; especially prevalent in the United States that there sole purpose is to stop racism. But what happens when the racism ends? These people are out of jobs. They cant just stop and say, “oh look, there is no more racism in the world, I guess my job here is complete.” No, they instead try to find little acts of what could be considered racism and explode them to make themselves needed. There entire business thrives on racism staying alive!! Therefore, I am not a racist person, but I do not agree with the article.

I found that I completely agree with Robby on most all of his points. I found I almost had to reword what I was going to say so that it didn’t sound like I was just copying what he wrote. I guess great minds think alike! J I really liked how he said that it was easy for a leader to get carried away with power.

I also found myself agreeing with what Katie said about how outrageous it was to have a list of words for minorities. She was right on target with what I was thinking and it was refreshing to see that someone else agrees with my crazy ideas!!

[April Borchelt]

"The Freedom to Offend" was a little confusing to me when i read it. I didn't really grasp what his initial argument was because I felt like he was just stating facts. I found that he was arguing the fact that people don't really understand the extent of how minorities, religions, and ethnicities are taken advantage of. How people make fun of their differences and the way that people don't know how serious it is to call someone a "name". I thought it was interesting when the author said the community doesn't talk about those "touchy issues". If no one talks about the issue then nothing will be learned from the experience. I don't agree with the authors statement about how the leaders influence on what will be made fun of or not. It is really the persons individual choice of what they feel about the topic.

In "An Orgy of Power" there was a lot of things that I didn't know about untill I read this piece. I thought it was interesting but disturbing at the same time. It is horrible to think that America has resorted to this type of "problem solver" when in fact it just adds more problems. It is sad to think about all of those people who have lived after being tortured...and all of the mental scars they have to endure every day. Those are the people forget about which is wrong in itself. I agree with the author that America has become numb to torture. I don't think that torture will become part of an American life though and our leaders don't have much to do with torture unless they are the ones issuing out the orders..which would be messed up.

I completley agree with Abbie Novak when she stated that ,"We are blessed to have the right of freedom of speech and we should not be looked down upon for what we say although, we should always try to be polite." I felt the same way when i read "the Freedom to Offend". I couldn't really grasp its cause very well. I also was impressed when Gessert stated how humans are the only things who torture. It had practically the same impact on me as Abbie.

[Diana Evans]

The first artical I read was "An Orgy of Power" by George Gessert. I was a little surpise with what I read; I knew in the past the goverment might have used torture to extract information but I wasn't aware that the practice was still in use. The idea of any type of torture, on any side, sickens me no matter how good the cause. I can understand that in order to defend our land better from those who wish to harm us; it is necessary for the goverment to use unorthadox ways to find out what the enemy is planning. Still, I believe with the goverment torturing or anyone torturing another human being is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think Gessert main point was America has been desensitize to the idea of torture and anything that relates to it. I complete agree with him. In our society, we watch movies, shows and read books that have some form of torture in it. We are no longer sicken by the sight or the concept of it.

The Freedom to Offend was hard to read and very confusing. I never was able to understand what he was trying to say so I can't say if I agree or disagree with his main point. When he told the story about the drunken man blaming the Jews for every thing and later said sorry, seemed a little random to me.I couldn't garsp what he was trying to get through. For some reason this artical just when over my head. I wish I understood what o was reading.

I thought Katy's point about America being numb to torture was very true. Americans are numb to horror wer see or hear. I liked how she gave several examples in how we surrond ourself with it. It's one thing to say we are numb but's another issue when she pointed out how we became that way.

[Diana Evans]

The first artical I read was "An Orgy of Power" by George Gessert. I was a little surpise with what I read; I knew in the past the goverment might have used torture to extract information but I wasn't aware that the practice was still in use. The idea of any type of torture, on any side, sickens me no matter how good the cause. I can understand that in order to defend our land better from those who wish to harm us; it is necessary for the goverment to use unorthadox ways to find out what the enemy is planning. Still, I believe with the goverment torturing or anyone torturing another human being is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think Gessert main point was America has been desensitize to the idea of torture and anything that relates to it. I complete agree with him. In our society, we watch movies, shows and read books that have some form of torture in it. We are no longer sicken by the sight or the concept of it.

The Freedom to Offend was hard to read and very confusing. I never was able to understand what he was trying to say so I can't say if I agree or disagree with his main point. When he told the story about the drunken man blaming the Jews for every thing and later said sorry, seemed a little random to me.I couldn't garsp what he was trying to get through. For some reason this artical just when over my head. I wish I understood what o was reading.

I thought Katy's point about America being numb to torture was very true. Americans are numb to horror wer see or hear. I liked how she gave several examples in how we surrond ourself with it. It's one thing to say we are numb but's another issue when she pointed out how we became that way.

[Diana Evans]

The first artical I read was "An Orgy of Power" by George Gessert. I was a little surpise with what I read; I knew in the past the goverment might have used torture to extract information but I wasn't aware that the practice was still in use. The idea of any type of torture, on any side, sickens me no matter how good the cause. I can understand that in order to defend our land better from those who wish to harm us; it is necessary for the goverment to use unorthadox ways to find out what the enemy is planning. Still, I believe with the goverment torturing or anyone torturing another human being is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think Gessert main point was America has been desensitize to the idea of torture and anything that relates to it. I complete agree with him. In our society, we watch movies, shows and read books that have some form of torture in it. We are no longer sicken by the sight or the concept of it.

The Freedom to Offend was hard to read and very confusing. I never was able to understand what he was trying to say so I can't say if I agree or disagree with his main point. When he told the story about the drunken man blaming the Jews for every thing and later said sorry, seemed a little random to me.I couldn't garsp what he was trying to get through. For some reason this artical just when over my head. I wish I understood what o was reading.

I thought Katy's point about America being numb to torture was very true. Americans are numb to horror wer see or hear. I liked how she gave several examples in how we surrond ourself with it. It's one thing to say we are numb but's another issue when she pointed out how we became that way.

[Mary Beth Barfield]

In "The Freedom to Offend," I agree that the piece was a little confusing at first. As Robbie said, it was hard to determine the writer's argument and what he was trying to say until the very end. I also agree with Burma's statement that some people don't understand the distinction between attacking and criticizing ethnic or religious communities. People have even turned to violence as in the case of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh because they were insulted; however, we have the right to free speech. Some people don't seem to understand that. I particularly liked Burma's statement at the end when he said, "It certainly was necessary to educate the mainstream...they should be the first to appreciate its benefits." Immigrants and other ethnic/religious groups need to understand that we do have free speech in this country, and on the other side of the argument, citizens should realize when they are crossing the line. I also thought that Burma did a good job of providing examples to help the reader understand his argument. I liked Abbie's statement when she said that we should not be looked down upon for what we have to say, but we should be considerate to others. This is a good statement because I agree that we should not take advantage of our freedoms.
In "An Orgy of Power," I was surprised to read about the kinds of torture that take place; however, I did find it interesting that torture is related to the amount of power a country possesses which is the main argument of this piece. Gessert made a good point when he said that the most important defense is the separation of powers and that the deeper our society goes into militarism and one-party rule, the more embedded the practice of torture will become in our American life. Gessert further supports his argument through several examples. Robbie made a good point when he said that it depends on the nature of the leader. This is very true because a leader could have power, but not necessarily believe in torture.

[Amanda Warner]

"The Freedom to Offend" was confusing to me also. The author is trying to say that we should be sensitive to our references to other races and religions. But every one must understand that the U.S has the freedom of speech and if they come to America to live, they would need to learn to appreciate this unique freedom and not take personal offence.

"An Orgy of Power": On sept 11 2001 the U.S was attacked the realizatation of how some groups hated us was frightining. It was of course a day that changed the way most people thought. One of those thoughts brought to our attention has been the use of torture against people we fear. The use of torture on one or even ten people would be worth it to save thousands. would it not? As the author says, torture has been used since the begining of time but with all the media attention and ability to access information over the internet it is now more publisized than ever before.

I agree with Katy when she said that people have the right to their opinion and freedom of speech, but some people go too far. A lot of people do take it too far and I agree with Emily that people sometimes do take too much offense on what is said about their culture. some of the reasons people immegrate to this country is for the rights they have. And that's what's pretty good about this counrty. Here people can say what they want about our presidents or whoever. But in other countries such comments could get someone shot. It is up to the person though on the receiving end of the comment not to become distessed about it.

[Cashin Davis]

When I read "An Orgy of Power" by George Gessert, I was very disturbed. Gessert's discussion of torture was straightforward, and I agree with him that the subject of torture is "repellent." He harped on the ideas that "only humans torture" and that humans commit this act because in enables them to have a sense of power. He wrote that the "Destruction of the innocent is the most incontrovertible proof of power (Gessert 78)." This statement is upsetting, and it is difficult for me to understand why one would desire power to such a great extent that they would want to inflict pain upon someone else. I agree with Gessert that the sole purpose of torture is to feel a sense of power, so the most important thing that can be done to prevent this horrible act is to maintain a separation of powers.

"The Freedom to Offend" by Ian Buruma is a strongly opinionated article with an accumulation of opinion-supporting evidence. I feel like the main point Buruma was trying to make is that offensive statements to minority groups in America are warranted because American's have freedom of speech. It is true that Americans have this right, but people tend to take advantage of it. It is fine to state an opinion, but when an opinion is vulgar and hateful, it is better to keep the opinion to oneself. This being said, the groups of people who make it their goal to enforce "politically correct" terminology should not focus so intently on this issue. Americans have the right to say what they want to, and it is the responsibility of the parents of a child to instill morals in their child so that they will know what is appropriate to say.

I agree with Christine's statement: "there is a fine line between being opinioned versus being outright offensive." An opinionated comment can come across so much more effectively when it does not deliberately belittle the person/peoples that it targets. This type of expression is cruel and I believe that it is taking advantage of American’s right to the freedom of speech. While immigrants should be grateful to live in the free country of America, the fact that they did not originate in America does not give the people who did originate here the right to alienate and intentionally verbally assault these immigrants. This act makes America less of a dreamland and more of a hell for the people who were hoping to have a new and better life in The United States.

[Margaret Bickley]

When I first started reading “The Freedom to Offend,” the introduction pulled me in because I am familiar with Mel Gibson. I found the article entertaining and well written. I think Ian Buruma purposely placed the excerpt about Mel Gibson to depict that minority groups being overly protective towards their race is an issue today not just in history. Buruma’s main argument was the people should have the right to speech without the constant fear of offending sensitive minority groups like Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Tutsis, or Catholics. When Buruma wrote a speech about English dress and dandyism, he was asked to delete a portion of his speech that referenced Benjamin Disraeli simply to avoid viewers judgment to strikingly offensive words. If Benjamin Disraeli is apart of the history of European dress and dandyism, then why is it a crime to mention the historical figure’s name and accomplishments/ opinions? Is it okay for people to disagree with another person’s opinions or would that be considered passing biased judgments based solely on the author’s background instead of his/her ideas? Buruma says, “We should treat individual Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, and the rest with courtesy and respect, but what they think or believe must not be exempt from criticism, or even from ridicule.” Today organized minority communities led by popularly elected leaders need to take more time in evaluating a person’s statement about their race before calling it prejudice. If this happens, then this issue about racism will be stopping getting out of hand.

Is it better to be fear or respected? Machiavelli would say a leader must ensure his power and the only way to have true devotion. A follower may love and respect their leader but that will not force him/her to obey; however fear will not fail. George Gessert in his essay, “An Orgy of Power” explains that the use of torture in countries by authoritative figures exists demonstrate and preserve one’s power. George Gessert is further proving Machiavelli’s argument in his essay- fear yields obedience and power stability. I agree with Gessert, but I find it disturbing that humans have to go to that extent for security. I agree with Cashin that separating powers is a solution. At America’s birth, our founding father incorporated Montesquieu’s idea in our Constitution in order to avoid one person holding all authority and power. Gessert is trying to point out that positive affect of the separating powers is the use of extreme attempts to ensure one’s power like torture can easily be eliminated. But America still used Torture over seas.

I am so sorry that this blog entry is late. I thought it was due tonight by midnight. When I woke up this morning, I saw it due last night. I hope you will still accept my entry for some credit.

[Megan Walsh]

I would like to start off by saying that I forgot that this entry was due last night and I apologize. It totally spaced my mind and I hope I can discuss with you in class on whether or not I can receive partical credit. I had basketball and day yesterday and practice during the week, so my mind was totally spaced out. I hope you take into consideration that I have never missed an assignment before and give some credit.

The article titled "The Freedom to Offend" brought up many instantances that I see in my everyday life. The article explains the issue on when is it appropriate to use racial slurs or talk about a religion in a negative way. Buruma states "[we] cannot call. . . without being taken to task for it. . ."; altough this is true people find it appropriate that the people of the same ethnicity or race are only allowed to refer to one another with such filthy words (Buruma 22).This is what I find hard to understand, the rules only apply to the opposite race or ethnicity that is doing the offending, but if I belong in your culture I can belittle you all that I want. Buruma makes another valid point when he asks "Who defines the meaning of hatred ? And who decides when it has been stirred up?"(Buruma 25). He asks who is in charge to tell someone when they have crossed the line of being humorous and who has the authority to say when hatred has been started and is in fact really hatred. There is no right answer to these questions because no matter where you go in society people are going to have a problem with someone else. And this statment is true, for example in sociology the class discussed racism and if it will ever cease. My teacher said no because not enough time has passed since were treated as equals.

These two articles are both very controversial, but "An Orgy of Power" takes the cake. Torture is the inflictionof severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. That is the dictionary definition of torture and that is what I believe to be acceptable or appropriate. I don not agree with unneccessary violence like the soldiers performed when ". . . cigarettes [were] being put out in [a] detainee's ears. . ." (Gessert). I feel as though that act was for pure pleasure and I is heart wrenching and distrubingly wrong. Torture, I find to be appropriate, is right when America is at war and they have a hostage that they need information from. Also when the soldiers have made an effort to talk to the hostage and to use the tactful torture techniques that they were trained to use. The downfall to torture is the how it effects the next generations as Gessert stated. It is disturbing to think what goes through torture' minds as they ruin someone's life and their families as well.

Margaret analyzed the articles well without becoming to attached to the issue. She also tied in the beliefs of Machiavelli which shows me that she knows what she is talking about and that she is engaged in the reading. Her use of rhetorical questions were another asset to her writting because it makes her reader think back to the article they just read.

[Chandler Scott]

Initially, I found Ian Buruma’s “The Freedom to Offend” quite confusing and lacking in flow. It required me to reread the article multiple times in order to grasp the concept Buruma intended to get across. In terms of the writer’s main argument, it seems undecided until halfway through the reading. He states his view on the topic when he says, “No matter how much good may have been done in the past by communal pressure groups, the increasing prominence of ‘community leaders’ and unelected figures… is having a damaging effect on our right to speak freely” (Buruma 25). Basically, he believes that community leaders and others of similar prominence are taking away people’s freedom of speech. He then goes on to say that the only way that we can protect our freedom from the power of the government is to just deal with it. This was a bit disappointing to me. He builds up his entire argument with in-depth details and thought-provoking analysis to end with we just have to deal with it. I agree with Buruma’s point about people taking advantage of their freedom of speech. If it is derogatory and spiteful, one should keep their comment to themselves.

I was not here on Wednesday to receive the article "The Orgy of Power".

I agree with Christine’s view on freedom of speech. She believes that we do have the right to say whatever we want, but the line is drawn when it comes to being offensive and rude to someone. If you say what you truly feel, not in order to hurt someone, it should not be tested.

[Alex McGill]

Last week my computer failed and the only computer that has been available has been my father's laptop. But he has been gone since wednesday and has just gotten back. I know that I should have found a way to check the blog during this time, but honestly I have not had my mind set on school this weekend. I was also not at school wednesday and did not receive the article "Orgy of Power".

I did read the article "the Freedom to Offend". My initial reaction to this article was a thought of Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who are both not elected officials but community leaders. Whenever 'hate crimes' occur or people say things similar to Mel Gibson, these are men who seem to speak for the 'entire black community'. I understood this article although I had to reread some of the passages, and I believe that the views expressed in the article are true. The authors main argument is that people have become afraid or are limited to say things about other groups or races because of the groups that have been established over the past years. In America we have been given the freedom of speech, which includes that about other groups of people. Offensive language is looked down upon, but in America you cannot be punished for using vulgar language or offensive words. Therefore we do have the freedom to offend people and say what we want. Most people have the right amout of dignity to be respectful to others, but if I really wanted to walk around saying racist and rude things to people I could. The author is trying to point out that groups and community leaders are threatening to peoples' free speech, because these groups intimidate people. By using this intimidation some groups have taken advantage and gained 'power' over others, even the people that they say they represent. They use the racism in the world and turn it into leverage to use against people, instead of defending their people from it. A person needs to learn to tolerate others, and as the author says 'just deal with' what comes at him. You cannot always rely on leaders to protect you from what people say and do. I agree with this article 99%, and believe that racism is only what people make it out to be, because there will always be racism and predjudice in the world.

I found that McKenzie's (or her Dad's) opinion was very true; that the leaders and organizations feed off of racism. They turn racism into profit, and exploit 'racist' statements to intimidate people and gain popularity. As long as there is free speech these people will always have a job, because as long as people express their views the organizations will always be able to oppose them.

Even if I don't get credit, I found this article very interesting and actually enjoyed writing about it.

[Rebecca Payton]

I would like to say that I am extremely sorry for not getting this critique in on time. It completely slipped my mind because I had state this weekend and didn't get back until late Saturday night. I hope that this can be accepted. I am truely sorry Mrs. Jamison!

In "An Orgy of Power" the detail of the torture and its overall effects on people was informative and rather shocking. I did not think about the fact that humans are the only living mammals that torture. I like also how this article made a comparison between old torture and new torture, and how available torture is for people to see with the internet. It's true that torture is hush hush in America because not very many people make an issue about it. It is also rare that you hear about your President approving torture. What Jean Amery said about his torturers wsa interesting to me because he said that the people that tortured him weren't all gruesome looking and mean; they were normal people. That really brought me back to reality when he said that it was normal people that were torturing him because people never know who is good and who is bad. The nicest looking person could actually end up being your worst nightmare. This fact also makes it hard to trust people you don't know. Also those torturers were just doing their job; it was their job to torture this poor man and people actually look over the fact that Amery has a life to live as well. This was an eye opening article to read for me.

"Freedom to Offend" has issues that are happening in the present day. We have our very first black President, and I think it has caused a lot of controversy already. It's not like black people are the only ones who take criticism though. It's Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Tutsis, and many more who take critcism for who they are and what they practice. All though this article is trying to say that we have the right to offend these people with our right of Freedom of Speech does not mean I want to do that. I am still afraid to say black or mexican to black or mexican people. I do not know what offends or does not offend people of a different race than mine. I think that my fear is a perfect example of what this article is talking about because I have been taught to be afraid to be rude, and not to say whatever I would like to say. This does to a certain extent limit my opportunities by being afraid to offend someone. These groups that we are divided in need to be brought together so we can learn to not be afraid, and speak our mind. I liked this ariticle alot for its out look on the world right now.

[Rebecca Payton]

I enjoyed Alex McGill's analysis because his language is so profound, and he condenses that piece so well while still analyzing it. The point he made about what the authors main point was acutally helped clear up the article's meaning for me.

[Mary Hampton Farr]

The Freedom to Offend was the first article that I grabbed. Buruma begins the essay with details from Mel Gibson's Anti-Semitic outburst. I disagree with him when he says that the most disturbing part of Gibson's spiel was the actor's wish to "meet with the leaders in the Jewish community..." (page 22). I think it more disturbing that Mel Gibson is well known as one of the most prominent Christians in Hollywood, and yet he was found in a drunken stupor, lashing out against the Jews. Burama's main arguments within this article is the freedom to offend. Our freedom to offend is intertwined with the freedom of speech. When the freedom to offend is restrained, it takes away our right to speak and think freely. Leaders amongst minorities attempt to censor what is said about their communities, but this limits the freedom of speech. I aggree with Burama's statement that religious individuals should be treated respectfully, but by no means should they think that they need to be protected from all incoming criticism.

My initial reaction to An Orgy of Power was shock. My eyes were immediately drawn to "found dead in a mass grave" (Gessert 72). I read further to find out that the U.S. Army was somehow involved... I found this appalling. Even more appalling were the Abu Ghraib photos. I was curious, so I looked them up online. It's absolutely horrifying that Americans would complete such unmerciful acts against those that we are supposedly helping in this War on Terror. Gessert's argument is based on the fact that "destruction of the innocent is the most incontrovertible proof of power" (Gessert 78). The United States proves its power through under the radar torture and its ability to get away with it.

To expand on Robby's analysis of "The Freedom to Offend," I think that overall, this article was difficult to follow. Buruma had several examples of the issue, but lacked the commentary to make a stronger point. It was difficult to discertain the facts from Burama's argument, which was evident, but nonetheless, hard to find.

[Courtney Sands]

I found that Ian Buruma's article "The Freedom to Offend" was very interesting and contained a great amount of truth. In the first paragraph, Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic words caught my attention because I am familiar with this man's Hollywood work and wasn't aware that he had said that. I thought that this article was well written and it had good points, enen though they were not exactly easy to find. Buruma's main argument is that there is a constant fear of insulting and offending minority groups that are overly sensitive. We have the freedom of speech and it is not selective. We can say things that offend other people and be protected by that freedom. Buruma makes that point clear when he states "When a touchy subject can no longer be openly and rationally discussed, it is left up to the bigots to talk about it irrationally"(Buruma 24). People should be able to discuss openly how they feel and what they think without being concerned with offending people.

The article "An Orgy of Power" by George Gessert was much more interesting to read and more shocking than the first article. I could not believe how horribly American soldiers had supposedly treated the prisoners of war,such as "Cook on his day off went to the PUC tent and broke a prisoner's leg with a Louisville Slugger"(Gessert 74). It just astounded me that anyone could actually do that, and with no reason for it! I thought we were supposed to be helping those people, that we were just against terrorists.

I thought what McKenzie and her dad said was very thought provoking. Racism will never officially end. Even if it was technically over, people would find even the smallest thing to pick at and create conflict. In many cases, I don't think racism is what people fear and get upset over, it's blatent truth.