War?

Blog - Agree or disagree on this book's position about war.

Sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes some country will just try to take over another without any chance of working things out. At that point you have two options: roll over and let them take over, or fight back. Fighting back means war, rolling over means submitting yourself to the complete will of another country. I believe that you have the right to fight back. This right should be contingent, however, on there being no other viable courses of action. This right should be contingent on there being no competing interests but the genuine sense of freedom in life. This is where the problems of war lie - in the competing interests. War spawns many things, one of which is war industries. War industries become huge, and they literally take over the political control of a war. Lobbyists, pressure, connections, they all play a role in keeping a country in a war. These companies are supposed to make money, and nothing is easier to make money off of then a fearful nation. In America, this has been the unfortunate reality since the Vietnam War. It has been especially evident in the current War in Afghanistan. The book basically takes on this problem when it talks about the "us vs. them" notion of the upper class getting involved in wars and then sending the lower class to fight them. And equally as upsetting is the brutality of war, the lives destroyed because of somebody else's interests. All that is to say that, I agree with the book's position on war. But sometimes war is necessary. Until every country in the world is focused on peace, then no country can focus on peace. The ultimate solution I can think of right now, is that countries should remain peaceful unless, and this is a big unless, their freedom is being explicitly challenged. Then they have the right, and this should be the only purpose and outcome of war, to defend themselves in the most effective, quickest, and least gruesome way. Ideally, this notion would put to rest war forever.

Trumbo

My favorite part of the book so far has been chapter VI. I really like the way Dalton Trumbo constructed the chapter. The way he flows through sentences, ignoring convential punctuation, and the way he uses short sentences, like “But we’re not. I must have been asleep. I must have been dreaming. It’s so hard to tell” (page 82), entices me. I find myself reading to a rhythm, like a song follows a beat. It seems in this capacity that the timing of a story is more evident. Time merges together much better when commas don’t separate past actions from the present. It’s a different kind of clarity, instead of telling you when things happened, it allows you to decide when time happened – which is a more direct reflection of our mental understanding of life. I find that this is a very intuitive style of writing. It eliminates counter-intuitive elements such as errors in comprehension that overtake the brain’s processes in more important aspects of reading – such as understanding what is going on. I feel as if I could read the chapter over and over again, and it would be no more boring than telling a good story over and over again. It makes sense in spite of the transition from paper to voice – something that is not as easy when punctuation dictates how you say everything.

Umperialism

Blog – discuss this essay in relationship to the book

This pro-imperialism essay is deeply rooted in nationalism. Likely an extension of other movements at the time, particularly the Manifest Destiny, this essay encourages America to spread its government to places around the world, such as "Porto Rico", Cuba, and the Philippines. The essay does not directly advocate war, but one gets the impression from reading it that the author would not be opposed to war if it meant that the US could spread its democracy around the world. The author supports his claims with references to England and France, powerful countries and US allies, that have colonies around the world. The author predicts that US imperialism will give the US a stronger economy as it takes over valuable trading partners. The book, Johnny Got His Gun, is clearly anti-war. This essay tries to dance around the subject of war, instead focusing on the glory of having colonies. War would cut into the point the author is trying to make.

Comparing

Blog – discuss this essay in relationship to the book

"America has lost just once" page 769 "invincible"

"American the Beautiful” by Dinesh D’Souza is one of the most biased, and ludicrous, essays I have ever read. The whole thing is pathetic, a case of propaganda and Republican ignorance. The whole essay is about how great we, as Americans, are and how we are shaping the world for the better - more freedom, more individuality. The Muslims (a couple times he/she admits that she is talking about fundamentalists, but overall that point is hiden), according to D'Souza are the antithesis of freedom. They are the antithesis of America. Therefore, they must be bad! As he/she puts it, we are "richer, more varied, and more fun... and morally superior". Because those are totally measurable categories that present no sort of bias, we must fight them all off! It turns out, that in Dinesh D'Souza's quest for nationalism and patriotism, he/she is doing the exact same thing that he/she claims the Muslims do. The hypocrisy is pathetic. We are definitely the most fun, most free society! The Patriot Act is definitely just simply there to ensure our freedom! Christian extremists are just as liberal as the rest of society! They certainly aren't even comparable to those Muslims! The war against Muslim extremists will be fast and decisive for America with the whole nation backing this awesome imperialism! And our women can wear what they want! The essay is pathetic.

Johnny Got His Gun is very much the opposite of this essay. Johnny Got His Gun is a completly anti-war book. Dinesh D'souza directly advocates war, at least in this case, against the Muslim fundamentalists. Johnny Got His Gun directly speaks against all wars.

Resistance

Blog – Think of the Declaration of Independence. What is the role of resistance in democracy?

Resistance obviously played a major role in the forming of this democracy we live in. Resistance plays a major role every time a government changes, no matter what form it may be: authoritarian, anarchy, anarchism, democracy, autocracy, oligarchy, republic, plutocracy, kleptocracy, dictatorship, corporatism, etc. In democracy, specifically, resistance plays a major role in the system of checks and balances. Resistance helps a government from going down the road of groupthink, a mode of group thinking that impairs decision-making because the desire for group harmony overrides a realistic appraisal of the possible decision alternatives (my psychology book). The unfortunate part of democracy however, is that like any type of government, as it strengthens, it stiffles further resistance. Imagine somebody trying to resist today's government in America. It would not turn out very well. Major resistance is not a viable option in large, absolute governments in today's world.

Child Custody Laws Are Really Intersting

Blog – Think of other legal questions regarding sexuality or gender that have been in the media recently. Discuss one you find interesting.

I think that women are still oppressed in society. We've talked in class and read about all the ways that it occurs. I would, however, like to talk about an area where the other sex is discriminated in society and in the court of law: child custody laws. I cannot even begin to explain the number of stories I have read about men getting screwed over by court rulings in these cases. The money that many men are forced to pay would be reason enough for outcry (6th paragraph). The real reason for outcry, however, is that men almost always lose child custody cases. These are not isolated claims. But you don't hear about them that much because the people being discriminated against are men, and that is the last thing that society wants to hear - cries of injustice from the top of the food chart. But this much is true - upon divorce, men are pretty much guaranteed to not be able to see their children as often, and they will have to pay an insane amount of money to "support them" (usually far more than is necessary). Lying behind the injustices of the "lesser on the food chart" is an equally unfair injustice to the "higher on the food chart". It seems to be the last thing on the "list of necessary reforms in society", but it is nevertheless worth recognizing, because gender inequality is inequality no matter what side it is on..

Engaging Text #4

Evan Wolfson definitely uses some of the skill he has obviously learned as a lawyer to justify gay marriage. Consider the near-two-pages of bullets he has laid out describing all the legal advantages of marriage. On page 103, he uses a Supreme Court Case that ruled convicted felons could marry to transition to a group of people that can't marry. Even his writing style - his method of transition - includes a legal reference. He also lists the four attributes of marriage that the justices determined. And consider the example of interracial marriage: "And change still needs to take place in the hearts of many, not to mention the law. As recently as 1998 in South Carolina and 2000 in Alabama, 40 percent of the voters in each state voted to keep offensive language barring interracial marriage in their respective state constitutions."