Don't You Want Me

You were working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
When I met you
I picked you out, I shook up and turned you around
Turned you into someone new

Now five years later on, you've got the world at your feet
Success has been so easy for you
But don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now
And I can put you back down too

Don't, don't you want me?
You know I can't believe it when I hear that you won't see me
Don't, don't you want me?
You know I don't believe you when you say that you don't need me
It's much too late to find
You think you've changed your mind
You'd better change it back, or we will both be sorry

Don't you want me, baby?
Don't you want me? Oh
Don't you want me, baby?
Don't you want me? Oh

I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar
That much is true
But even then, I knew I'd find a much better place
Either with or without you

The five years we have had have been such good times
I still love you
But now, I think it's time I live my life on my own
I guess it's just what I must do

Don't, don't you want me?
You know I can't believe it when I hear that you won't see me
Don't, don't you want me?
You know I don't believe you
When you say that you don't need me
It's much too late to find
You think you've changed your mind
You'd better change it back, or we will both be sorry

Don't you want me, baby?
Don't you want me? Oh
Don't you want me, baby?
Don't you want me? Oh

The Human League - 1981

Don't you want to synthesize your research findings to develop arguments? This duet from 1981 is a classic song of the 80s new wave sound (also one of my favorite music movements). It's a punchy, catchy synth-pop song, and the Number 1 UK Single of 1981. It's also a great example of how Student Learning Outcome 2, Documentation and Arguments, can be put into practice beyond the classroom.

Let's break down the song in terms of the SLO, looking at the song like an argumentative work. It consists of a back-and-forth debate between two people with differing opinions: a cocktail waitress and the man who fell in love with her. The first line was taken from a photo-story from a teen girl magazine that Philip Oakley, the lead singer of The Human League, came across. Oakley integrates evidence through direct quotation to establish context. Later in the song, the cocktail waitress starts by repeating the same line and conceding "That much is true," explaining that although the situation at the beginning was the same, their outlooks on it were very different.

The man's perspective is that the woman's success was solely due to his actions, and her not seeing him anymore is a direct insult that shows that the woman is callous and unappreciative. Contrastingly, the woman's perspective is that she always knew she would find something better, and although she loves the man, she is acting in her own best interest to find herself as an individual person. The two characters in the song have different positionalities, influenced by their lived experience as their respective genders and their life experience.

Documentation and Arguments

Student Learning Outcome #2

Unit 2 of this course was where I saw the most growth in the goals outlined in this Student Learning Outcome. Overall, I found this SLO to be about being able to analyze sources that argue different things and come from different perspectives. For argumentative essays, I was always used to arguing for one specific side and using evidence to support it. I could acknowledge the differing viewpoint in the form of a counterargument and then provide a rebuttal. I could also craft my thesis question in a "to what extent" format and then use my writing to answer that question (to a great extent, to a moderate extent, etc). However, for Unit 2 and the court case controversy, I practiced new ways of supporting positions and ideas with compelling discussions of evidence from multiple sources and perspectives because I argued for both sides in the same work. The thesis was an arguable statement about rhetoric, but it wasn’t a claim about the controversy itself. As such, I practiced arguing for both sides in the same essay; I switched from one persuasive argument to a completely different one in the next paragraph, and explained why the evidence supported each contradictory point. I synthesized my research findings to develop arguments that centered around the rhetorical strategies used by both sides of a controversy, instead of just arguing for one opinion. I identified strategies such as ethos, pathos, and logos used in sources, and then integrated that evidence. I used the "PIEIT" formula to make a point, illustrate it, and explain why it supports my thesis through deep examination and analysis. I also used a variety of research methods for the purpose of inquiry; I had a meeting with Professor Von Hippel at the University of Arizona, who happened to be an expert on the toxicology aspect of my controversy. I looked through official court transcripts, news reports, blogs, newsletters, and other popular media sources that were accessible online. Then, I evaluated the credibility, appropriateness, and quality of each one by identifying the origin, purpose (see What a Fool Believes), intended audience, and context of the source.

Supporting Artifact

Excerpt of Unit 2 Conversation Between Sources

Pro Perspective: Main Argument

The Boeing Company, the current owner of the vast majority of the Santa Susana Field Lab, is adhering to cleanup standards and regulations and even going above and beyond to ensure the environment is not harmed. (Boeing, Sams, Bower, WHC) Studies have shown that the past site operations have had no adverse health effects on area residents. (DoE, AEC) The SSFL should be held to federal cleanup standards and the state does not have jurisdiction over it (NASA, Boeing, Raphael v Boeing). Boeing has acted completely ethically and legally in the past and the present through all of their operations, cleanup efforts, and legal disputes. Boeing is fully committed to decontaminating the area in a cost-effective and timely manner. Any arguments against Boeing have not held up in a court of law, district or federal, because they are baseless and half-formed at best.

Neutral Perspective: Main Argument

Boeing, as an entity, represents all owners, past and present, of the Santa Susana Field Lab (Ninth Circuit). Under California law, because The Boeing Company now owns the site, they assume all legal responsibility, and they are liable for all harm and in charge of all decontamination efforts. SB 990, the state bill demanding stricter cleanup regulations, was enjoined because it violated both the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity (Ninth Circuit). The class-action lawsuit was barred due to the Statute of Limitations, because plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to apply the delayed discovery rule to the case (Superior Court). Neither of these cases address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims. More recently, the deadline for lawsuits against Boeing has been extended (Ventura County). DTSC, despite being a state entity, is the organization overseeing the cleanup.

Con Perspective: Main Argument

The Boeing Company has acted unethically in the past and they continue to do so in the present (NRDC). The field lab operations have affected the health of the residents in the area surrounding the site (PASSFL) and these effects have lasted decades. This is directly due to exposure to radiation that emanated from a partial nuclear meltdown, where the workers were told to vent the radiation into the surrounding areas (NBC). Contaminants have also seeped into the groundwater, which went previously undetected (Maven’s Notebook). All entities involved with the current cleanup have tried to evade responsibility for it (NRDC) even though numerous studies have proven the horrible environmental impact the site has had. Time and time again, Boeing has acted with intentional malicious intent to avoid responsibility and backlash at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Pro Perspective: Key Rhetorical Strategies

In this position, logos and ethos are employed frequently. Ethos is used when Boeing or pro-Boeing sources want to establish trust and credibility with the audience. This is used when the Santa Susana Newsletter shows Boeing receiving two awards from the WHC at their conference (Sams, Bower). Boeing also cites past scientific achievements that the SSFL contributed to, creating a positive association (Boeing). Logos is used when Boeing provides evidence, such as saying “studies show” that they did not cause any health effects.

Neutral Perspective: Key Rhetorical Strategies

Logos is the rhetorical strategy that appears the most in neutral sources. This is likely because most of the neutral sources aren’t trying to persuade audiences to adopt a certain opinion or mindset, they are simply there to provide information.

Con Perspective: Key Rhetorical Strategies

In this position, pathos is used extensively. PASSFL uses personal anecdotes from people who have suffered from radiological contamination. Emotional language is used in many sources to connote Boeing as untrustworthy. Ethos is also used with NRDC, emphasizing that the article is written by an expert. This builds credibility with the audience. Similar to the pro position, logos is also used when sources say that decades of studies on the matter prove that the site has affected the health of area residents. Many people resonate with the struggle of fighting against a larger, more powerful corporate entity, and the sources empathize with that.

Supporting Artifact

Excerpt (2/8 sources) from my Final Research Proposal

Reiser, Caroline. “Questions and Answers about the Santa Susana Field Lab.” Www.nrdc.org, Natural Resources Defense Council, 10 May 2022, www.nrdc.org/bio/caroline-reiser/questions-and-answers-about-santa-susana-field-lab. Accessed 8 Oct. 2025.
- Type of Source: Popular Media; Scientific expert opinion/blog from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy groups
- Author and Credentials: The source is a list of common questions and answers about the Santa Susana Field Lab. It was written by Caroline Reiser, a senior attorney, for the nonprofit climate advocacy group’s website. Because their mission is to hold polluters accountable and protect the environment and public health, they are likely to focus on the adverse impacts of the Santa Susana Field Lab and criticize how they are being handled.
- Quotes or Paraphrases:
  - “At the time, the Atomic Energy Commission kept the meltdown hidden from the public. Only in 1979, 20 years after the radioactive release, did watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap discover the secret hidden in archives.”
  - “Since signing the cleanup agreements, Boeing, NASA, and the DOE have all claimed there’s little danger from Santa Susana and have tried to walk back the cleanup agreements. This is even with decades of evidence of both on-site and off-site health impacts.”
  - “Even though all of the responsible parties signed binding agreements with California that required cleanup to be done by 2017, the cleanup has barely begun. And the work that has been done has not lived up to standards.”
- Source’s rhetorical analysis of quotes and strategies: How is it affecting the controversial “conversation?” Why is it affecting the “conversation?”
  - The source states how all of the large entities involved with the Santa Susana Field Lab have, at one point or another, tried to avoid responsibility for the contamination of the surrounding area. It highlights how the meltdown itself was “hidden” from the public for twenty years. The source also makes it known that had the watchdog group not looked through the archives, it may have remained a “secret” forever. This gives the impression that the corporations and entities involved with the SSFL are not trustworthy and do not have the public’s best interest at heart. It also suggests that Boeing as a company is not governed by honesty, and in fact the dishonesty and deceitfulness from the company was intentional.
  - The source claims that, even with the legally binding agreements dictating cleanup procedure and a clear deadline, cleanup efforts do not come anywhere close to meeting the standard. This affects the conversation because it raises questions about why anyone involved in a lawsuit against Boeing has to be within a specific time frame and perfectly by the book, but Boeing and other federal agencies don’t face any legal consequences for directly violating a clear agreement. It implies that the lack of consequence is due to Boeing’s power and influence as a company.
  - The source cites evidence that the Santa Susana Field Lab has been harmful to its environment. It provides several studies and articles about the contaminants and how they have affected the area surrounding the laboratory. However, some of the articles cited are opinion-based and most likely would not have sufficient legal standing. Pro-Boeing statements or statements from Boeing themselves are “claims” while anti-Boeing sources are referred to as “evidence,” which gives the impression that some information is automatically more true than other information.
- How this will help: This source is PRO stricter cleanup standards. It highlights the many morally questionable decisions that Boeing and other federal entities have made concerning the partial nuclear meltdown, including avoiding cleanup duties. Within the source, this is a display of Boeing’s near-invincibility as a corporation.
Sams, Kamara, and Michael Bower. “Santa Susana Newsletter; Fall 2024.” Boeing, 2024.
- Type of Source: Popular media (to an extent); Location-based newsletter
- Author and Credentials: This source is a newsletter from the “Restore Santa Susana” website. Upon further inspection, I found that it was actually published by Boeing, as were all of the previous newsletters. Kamara Sams, credited in the newsletter as a program director, is on the Board of Directors for the LA Conservation Corps and also works in Boeing’s sustainability business unit. Mike Bower, also credited, has acted as a Project Manager for Boeing for the past 15 years. The newsletter can be found under the Boeing website’s overview of SSFL, presented alongside fact sheets and comprehensive cleanup frameworks as a record of Boeing’s cleanup efforts. Although the source presents itself as neutral, it is likely to be pro-Boeing in nature because it was published by Boeing as proof of their success. The newsletter is from fall of 2024.
- Quotes or Paraphrases:
  - “The Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC) recently awarded Boeing’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory with two environmental awards during the WHC Conservation Conference…[receiving] the Remediation Project Award, recognizing the site’s interim soil excavation activities; stormwater management; groundwater studies; and stakeholder engagement…”
  - “We remain committed to fulfilling our obligations and completing a stringent cleanup. We appreciate the ongoing support from the community and look forward to the successful restoration and preservation of the Santa Susana site for the benefit of future generations.”
  - “The soil we excavated from the Area I Burn Pit included the removal of chemicals to ecological risk-based screening levels, up to 2 feet of soil in some areas. Additionally, radionuclide-containing soil was cleaned up to background levels. In order to achieve this, some areas were excavated up to 10 feet.”
  - “Following field inspections, the CUPA reviewed applicable documentation and reporting, and it issued a final report showing no violations or concerns.”
- Source’s rhetorical analysis of quotes and strategies: How is it affecting the controversial “conversation?” Why is it affecting the “conversation?”
  - This source contains a segment where Boeing representatives are directly speaking on behalf of the corporation, using a first-person point of view and presenting information using we or our. The rest of the newsletter speaks from a third person perspective, saying Boeing and the site when referring to the corporation and their field operations. There is no independent editorial board and no external publisher, so all of the information in the newsletter is coming directly from Boeing. The clear shift from first person to third implies that there was a change in who is providing the information. Because it was presented as a neutral location-based newsletter, this is misleading to Santa Susana residents.
  - This newsletter is more recent, released in the fall of 2024. The topic is current cleanup efforts of the Santa Susana Field Lab, and the source claims that they are progressing fast towards the final cleanup effort of the SSFL and working in tandem with the DTSC, CUPA, and Ventura County. This affects the conversation because it provides the perspective of present operations instead of analyzing past legal cases.
  - The newsletter shows Boeing receiving multiple awards for environmental cleanup efforts, stating that the council’s awards “honor excellence in corporate conservation.” The newsletter references other organizations and programs, like Ventura County’s Certified Unified Program Agency. The source cites what the organization or program has said positively about Boeing, then explains who they are and what they do, emphasizing their expertise or prestige on environmental issues. The newsletter uses ethos to build credibility with readers, gaining trust by displaying how other trustworthy organizations are commending and endorsing them.
- How this will help: This source is ANTI stricter cleanup standards, because it communicates that Boeing is already going above and beyond in their environmental decontamination efforts.

Specific Work Analysis

Course Goal #3

In Unit 2, the section dedicated to deeply examining our chosen Court Case Controversy, there were two major assignments we spent time on: the Research Proposal and the actual Essay 2. My experience with this unit contrasts with the opinion of some of my peers. Personally, I enjoyed the Research Proposal more than the Essay 2, and I felt like my Research Proposal was of a much higher caliber in terms of quality and content. For my Essay 2, I felt like I had so much to say, and not enough words to say it with. In an early draft, I tried to outline everything I felt was important and all the points that I wanted to get across. Even though it wasn't in full PIEIT paragraph form yet, it was long, wordy, and full of content to the point of being unintelligible. I learned, through this assignment, that sometimes I have to sacrifice some content so that the "meat-and-potatoes" of the work is easier to find and understand. For my Research Proposal, however, I was able to keep all of my content and analysis in the final version of the work. I believe this is due to the Essay 2 requiring free-floating arguments to flow together, whereas the Research Proposal already has a clear outline of where things need to go. A topic sentence in a paragraph needs to be identifiable, but under a section labeled "Rhetorical Analysis" for a source, you know you're looking at rhetorical analysis. From this experience, I have learned that I am good at crafting individual points and arguments, but I need practice with synthesizing them into one cohesive body. My Unit 1 Systems Literacy Narrative was the most enjoyable, because it was in a narrative voice. Although I did struggle with audience mapping and reworked seemingly minute details over and over again, it was the work I had the most personal connection to.