When I imagine revising my writing, it is something I always dread. When I write, I usually write to succeed the first time, and any revision I have to make later will typically be grammatical. I feel when I write I am able to organize myself in the first go, so revising a paper is not something I commonly do. Throughout high school, every now and then as an assignment I would have to revise a draft that was graded, and in doing so any correction I would have to make would either be because I misspelled a word or was too vague somewhere, but other than that, that would be it. Revising is something I have never really felt a need to do, especially if I read my work over first before submitting it. When it comes to revision I would say proofreading is the first step, and then comes the choice of just simple editing or total revision.  If revision is necessary, I would assume it is because a realization has occurred that the paper doesn’t focus overall on a main point enough. While I do not like revising work, I agree with many points Dethier makes except for his argument pertaining to making a worse work. I do believe if something works well do not try to make it better, as ruining work in throwing away what worked best in an attempt to revise is a possibility.

For my rhetorical analysis paper, I am doing my research based around ISIS. I am planning on seeing how different News stations feel ISIS should be approached, dealt with, and what threat they pose. I haven’t spent much time on drafting my paper, and I need to work on finding two ISIS articles that perfectly almost contradict each other. I need to work on how the two articles will contrast and collide with each other and how I will organize my points from each. I’m happy with my topic and and the amount there is to talk about, so I am not entirely worried about writing too little.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/29/politics/poll-americans-back-airstrikes/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/

http://rt.com/news/183048-isis-grow-expand-jihadist/

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/are-airstrikes-against-isis-working-n219611

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&u=nysl_li_kmhs&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010273220

For my analysis, I want to pursue the current rise of ISIS, the Islamic State or Syria and Iraq, and discuss the current arguments of the threat level ISIS offers, their origin and current workings in the middle east, what is currently being done to combat them and what may need to be done, and finally discuss some insight of terrorism. ISIS has been deemed by some as being even worse than Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and are currently known to be on a mission of mass genocide and are the cause of hundreds of crucifixions and piles of bodies throughout Syria and Iraq.  What makes ISIS even worse is not only their size but that their leadership is not as important as it was to Al Qaeda, so assassinating one man will not bring them down. On a global scale the planet looks to the United States to combat such a threat, however, the biggest questions are who will back the U.S, if the U.S. should be the world’s policeman again, and how long is the U.S. willing to wage another war for that many either are or will question. I love my military and will support it to its end, and ISIS is a serious threat that stands against the pursuit of happiness and the freedom of life itself, and as a New Yorker I have every reason to be concerned about what ISIS may do or are currently doing. I am also brought to want to argue this topic because I want to shed light on it and create arguments that will allow people to learn more and see the weight of what it is ISIS stands for and how it cannot be ignored.