After reading through the packet the "No" section by Sydney Freedberg seems to stand out. Being completely honest, it was hard to understand and make sense of arguments that seemed to jump all over the place. I also do not believe I have enough knowledge of the "War on Terror" to have an opinion, however; I tend to follow Freedberg's thinking.
Freedberg's argument is the Pakistani government and the tribes of the north will not be able to work together to find Osama bin Laden or cease military actions of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Freedberg said, "The danger, of course, is that dead bystanders can turn a military success into a political disaster. If Al Qaeda's dilemma is, lie low at the risk of irrelevance or take action at the risk of exposure, the American dilemma is, push so soflty that nothing happens or push so hard that force drives neutral Muslims into the enemy camp" (120-121). This means that Pakistan is a balance; when there is military action there is political disaster and when there is political action the military creates disaster. The dilemma then is, America can "push so softly" and there is no change created or America can "push so hard" and the neutral Muslims under the government leave for the enemy. Clearly Pakistan is "a country that has become both ally and battleground in the war on terror" (126). It is both a place against terror and a place where terror is fought.
In the "Yes" argument Teresita C. Schaffer says, "even a frequent visitor like me was overwhelmed by the sense that the Pakistani government has made a far-reaching policy change, one that may turn out to be strategic" (113). She seems to mention the government's efforts towards securing and strengthening peace but as a traveler she will not be exposed to the lawless tribes?? Overall, she makes a few good points about building up the institutions that the government rests upon in Pakistan but she seems to ignore the northern half of the country which makes her argument weak.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Dialogues of Plato - Crito
The dialogue, Crito, takes place between the trial and death of Socrates. Crito, a friend of Socrates, pays a visit to his cell with a plan for an easy escape. Crito expresses his belief that Socrates is wronging his family, friends, and himself. That is not Crito's only belief; he also states that Socrates will be abandoning a future voice for the children by agreeing to his death sentence. Crito says, "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to persevere to the end in their nurture and education" (44). This means that no man should be allowed to nurture and educate children if they are unwilling to continue. Socrates denies Crito's plan with his philosophical tongue. He will continue to be guided by reason, recognizing authority and his duty to obey the laws of Athens. Socrates speaks through the laws of Athens detailing the fact that he had not made an attempt to leave, which he was allowed to do, in order to experience another city. Therefore it remains his duty to abide by the laws of Athens. Socrates believes the laws will say, "all patriotic citizens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter of the laws, and you will confirm in the minds of the judges the justice of their own condemnation of you. For he who is the corrupter of the laws is more likely to be a corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind" (55). This means as Socrates travels to any other city, after his escape, the patriotic citizens will know he had challenged the laws. They will use that knowledge to verify their disapproval and believe that he will corrupt the young as he had the laws. The dialogue ends with the final conclusion from the laws; Socrates will be seen as more of an enemy, to the laws and the world, if he remains alive rather than dead. Socrates explains to Crito, this is the voice I hear and it keeps me from hearing anyone else. Crito is left speechless.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Dialogues of Plato - Apology
The Apology is about Socrates trial in 399 B.C. against citizens of Athens. He was tried for corrupting the young Athenians and worshiping his own god instead of the god recognized by the state. The Apology is told from Plato's account of Socrates defense in the trial. Socrates "represented a threat to the new regime" by speaking for the voice of the wise and nonconformity rather than the voice of conformity. This threat was masked with the accused charges (2). Socrates was found guilty. He did not "refute" the charges, but tried to show the court the hostility Meletus, the poet, and others felt towards him and his philosophical mission of searching into himself and in others.
The Apology begins with Socrates explanation of his inquisition. Socrates believed himself to be somewhat like a translator for God; someone who could relay wisdom and words of God to people in order to improve their lives and personalities. While on his inquisition he was faced with many politicians, poets, and rhetoricians who were knowledgeable but not necessarily wise. Socrates offerings and words of wisdom alienated these men and evoked feelings of hatred against him. He was brought to court because of this hatred but the people of Athens masked the reason by accusing Socrates of inventing his own God and trying to get people to believe his ways, which they believe, corrupted the youth of Athens.
While reading the Apology I felt sorry for Socrates. I felt that he couldn't help that his mission in life was to inform others of their wrong-doings. He didn't choose his role as a gadfly; it was chosen for him and he didn't turn away. Socrates said, "...a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought to only consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or bad" (20). Socrates wasn't afraid of his punishment or facing death; he had mentioned many times that he didn't know whether death was evil or good. He believed that a person must pay more attention to their actions in the present then to worry about life after death. I agree with Socrates and his way of thinking. There are going to always be people criticizing, demanding, and requesting things from you; if you know yourself and believe that you are living to your greatest potential and living good, those people who criticize, demand and request are those who need to take a look into their own lives and find themselves.
The Apology begins with Socrates explanation of his inquisition. Socrates believed himself to be somewhat like a translator for God; someone who could relay wisdom and words of God to people in order to improve their lives and personalities. While on his inquisition he was faced with many politicians, poets, and rhetoricians who were knowledgeable but not necessarily wise. Socrates offerings and words of wisdom alienated these men and evoked feelings of hatred against him. He was brought to court because of this hatred but the people of Athens masked the reason by accusing Socrates of inventing his own God and trying to get people to believe his ways, which they believe, corrupted the youth of Athens.
While reading the Apology I felt sorry for Socrates. I felt that he couldn't help that his mission in life was to inform others of their wrong-doings. He didn't choose his role as a gadfly; it was chosen for him and he didn't turn away. Socrates said, "...a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought to only consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong--acting the part of a good man or bad" (20). Socrates wasn't afraid of his punishment or facing death; he had mentioned many times that he didn't know whether death was evil or good. He believed that a person must pay more attention to their actions in the present then to worry about life after death. I agree with Socrates and his way of thinking. There are going to always be people criticizing, demanding, and requesting things from you; if you know yourself and believe that you are living to your greatest potential and living good, those people who criticize, demand and request are those who need to take a look into their own lives and find themselves.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Law and Justice
In this packet the author, Zinn, reveals his feelings about law and justice. His started by giving the story about David O'Brien. David O'Brien and three friends started their draft registration cards on fire in front of a crowd, to express their feelings about the Vietnam War. O'Brien knew this was against the law but considered it a part of free speech under the Constitution. The law was disobeyed and the government sent him to prison. O'Brien had been a part of an act showing civil disobedience; which brought Zinn to his next argument: Obedience and Disobedience.
Zinn began this argument with Tommy Trantino, a poet and artist, had written while on death row. Tommy wrote a story about asking to use the restroom in first grade. His teacher said no, but Tommy could not accept her answer, he had to go to the bathroom. When Tommy went to leave without permission he had gone in his pants. Tommy had said, "...if one obeys and follows orders and adheres to all the rules and regulations of the lore of the lamb one is going to shit in one's pants and one's mother is going to have to clean up afterwards ya see?" (108). The point being made, obeying every rule and regulation is still going to cause chaos and controversy. Zinn continues his point by using a line quoted from Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, "We always obeyed the law. Isn't that what you do in America? Even if you don't agree with a law personally, you still obey it. Otherwise life would be chaos" (108). Gertrude Scholtz-Klink was the chief of the Women's Bureau under Hitler. If you don't personally agree with something such as, the Nazis mass murdering of the Jews, does a person go along with it anyway because it's the law? Or do they try to join forces and fight the law?
Zinn goes on to talk about how peace, stability, and order are desirable but there is also justice. Treating people fairly and giving everyone the same rights and freedoms. Having obedience may not always allow for justice which was what our founding fathers build this country upon. Jefferson and colleagues wording in the Declaration of Independence, " 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' -- these are the ends. And 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government' " (109). Zinn states that we need to seek new ways of holding justice without causing violence to human rights. Zinn also talks about the "Rule of law" and how it "does not do away with the unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law" (111). Presidents, CIA officials, other important people or wealthy people get away with crimes while lower class citizens and minorities are not allowed any "second chance." This shows inequality and how justice is not held. "In society, the rich and strong get what they want by the law of contract, the rules of the market, and the power of authorities to change the rules or violate them at will" (114).
To sum up Zinns arguments; he believes in order and obedience but also in the rights people have when speaking out against laws. In the last paragraph of the packet Zinn explains that protesting is not departing from democracy but simply going against tradition. He agrees that it is sometimes troublesome but its healthy in society (123).
I agree with many of the arguments and points Zinn made throughout the "Law and Justice" packet; including the ones I have identified above. It's healthy to protest and speak out against tradition. I firmly believe that as times change peopled need to accept change and even seek change. Protest and let your voice be heard and back yourself up because, "If it is right to disobey unjust laws, it is right to disobey unjust punishment for breaking those laws" (122).
Zinn began this argument with Tommy Trantino, a poet and artist, had written while on death row. Tommy wrote a story about asking to use the restroom in first grade. His teacher said no, but Tommy could not accept her answer, he had to go to the bathroom. When Tommy went to leave without permission he had gone in his pants. Tommy had said, "...if one obeys and follows orders and adheres to all the rules and regulations of the lore of the lamb one is going to shit in one's pants and one's mother is going to have to clean up afterwards ya see?" (108). The point being made, obeying every rule and regulation is still going to cause chaos and controversy. Zinn continues his point by using a line quoted from Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, "We always obeyed the law. Isn't that what you do in America? Even if you don't agree with a law personally, you still obey it. Otherwise life would be chaos" (108). Gertrude Scholtz-Klink was the chief of the Women's Bureau under Hitler. If you don't personally agree with something such as, the Nazis mass murdering of the Jews, does a person go along with it anyway because it's the law? Or do they try to join forces and fight the law?
Zinn goes on to talk about how peace, stability, and order are desirable but there is also justice. Treating people fairly and giving everyone the same rights and freedoms. Having obedience may not always allow for justice which was what our founding fathers build this country upon. Jefferson and colleagues wording in the Declaration of Independence, " 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' -- these are the ends. And 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government' " (109). Zinn states that we need to seek new ways of holding justice without causing violence to human rights. Zinn also talks about the "Rule of law" and how it "does not do away with the unequal distribution of wealth and power, but reinforces that inequality with the authority of law" (111). Presidents, CIA officials, other important people or wealthy people get away with crimes while lower class citizens and minorities are not allowed any "second chance." This shows inequality and how justice is not held. "In society, the rich and strong get what they want by the law of contract, the rules of the market, and the power of authorities to change the rules or violate them at will" (114).
To sum up Zinns arguments; he believes in order and obedience but also in the rights people have when speaking out against laws. In the last paragraph of the packet Zinn explains that protesting is not departing from democracy but simply going against tradition. He agrees that it is sometimes troublesome but its healthy in society (123).
I agree with many of the arguments and points Zinn made throughout the "Law and Justice" packet; including the ones I have identified above. It's healthy to protest and speak out against tradition. I firmly believe that as times change peopled need to accept change and even seek change. Protest and let your voice be heard and back yourself up because, "If it is right to disobey unjust laws, it is right to disobey unjust punishment for breaking those laws" (122).
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Inherit the Wind
The phrase "Inherit the Wind" is a part of the Book of Proverbs. After researching the Book of Proverbs I found out that, "This Book is so called, because it consists of wise and weighty sentences: regulating the morals of men: and directing them to wisdom and virtue. And these sentences are also called PARABLES, because great truths are often couched in them under certain figures and similitudes" ( http://www.tldm.org/bible/Old%20Testament/proverbs.htm). The Proverb which contains, "Inherit the Wind" comes from Proverb 11:29 which reads: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart."
Reference to the Book of Proverbs appears in Act Two Scene One. Reverend Brown holds a prayer meeting in which he displays a firm disbelief in the actions of Bertram Cates. When giving this sermon Brown says, "O Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his sould writhe in anguish and damnation--" (Inherit the Wind, 66). His daughter who is friends with Cates chimes in pleading her father not to pray to destroy Cates. Brown answers back by calling down the same curse on Rachel for asking for the grace of Cates. Brady stands up now and says, "Reverend Brown, I know it is the great zeal of your faith which makes you utter this prayer! But it is possible to be overzealous, to destroy that which you hope to save--so that nothing is left but emptiness. Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs-- "He that troubleth his own house...shall inherit the wind." The Bible also tells us that God forgives His Children. And we, the Children of God should forgive each other" (Inherit the Wind, 66-67).
He is trying to warn Brown that his harsh words against Cates and creating problems within his own family could come back in the end leaving him with consequences and ultimately nothing at all. This is true in Act Three when Reverend Brown's daughter Rachel leaves him for Cates. Brady dies while giving a victory speech. Creating problems in this book left characters with nothing; they were left fools to Cates wisdom and heart.
Reference to the Book of Proverbs appears in Act Two Scene One. Reverend Brown holds a prayer meeting in which he displays a firm disbelief in the actions of Bertram Cates. When giving this sermon Brown says, "O Lord of the Tempest and the Thunder! O Lord of Righteousness and Wrath! We pray that Thou wilt make a sign unto us! Strike down this sinner, as Thou didst Thine enemies of old, in the days of the Pharaohs! Let him feel the terror of Thy sword! For all eternity, let his sould writhe in anguish and damnation--" (Inherit the Wind, 66). His daughter who is friends with Cates chimes in pleading her father not to pray to destroy Cates. Brown answers back by calling down the same curse on Rachel for asking for the grace of Cates. Brady stands up now and says, "Reverend Brown, I know it is the great zeal of your faith which makes you utter this prayer! But it is possible to be overzealous, to destroy that which you hope to save--so that nothing is left but emptiness. Remember the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs-- "He that troubleth his own house...shall inherit the wind." The Bible also tells us that God forgives His Children. And we, the Children of God should forgive each other" (Inherit the Wind, 66-67).
He is trying to warn Brown that his harsh words against Cates and creating problems within his own family could come back in the end leaving him with consequences and ultimately nothing at all. This is true in Act Three when Reverend Brown's daughter Rachel leaves him for Cates. Brady dies while giving a victory speech. Creating problems in this book left characters with nothing; they were left fools to Cates wisdom and heart.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Left and Right Ends of Political Spectrum
On the first test, Political Quiz Show, I scored (-4.75, -2.72). Economically I am left and socially I am Libertarian. I most closely related with Gandhi who believed in the supreme power of the individual. Gandhi believed heavily in peaceful civil disobedience and a struggle towards civil rights (Wikipedia). I believe that people have the right to marry whom ever they choose, have an abortion, and make another other choice as long as it doesn't disrupt the civil rights of others. As the time changes and the years pass by, more and more new ideas and technology are expressed throughout society. Our government and country need to keep up with the of the rest of the world by allowing new ideas, new laws, and new customes under the Constitution. Providing more funding for stem cell research and alternative resources for oil help us expand into the present time.
On the Political Quiz Show my score was a nine. Most closely related with Hillary Clinton and very Liberal. Hillary Clinton, being very Liberal, is pro-choice. She is on the left side of the political spectrum. On the last quiz I scored a 39 with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. I scored the highest with Dennis Kucinich, a score of 47. The issues we disagreed on were Iraq and social security, which I don't have much of an opinion on anyways considering I don't know enough about each issue. Next in line was Chris Dodd, a score of 42. We disagree on Iraq, social security and immigration. Out of my top five on this quiz they were all Democrats. In my top ten there were only two Republican Candidates. I agreed with candidates on issues involving choice, freedom, and civil rights. Issues such as; universal health care plan, provide funding for stem cell research, legalizing abortion, opposition to a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as something only between a man and a woman and opposition to the death penalty.
Overall I can say that I do agree more with the left side of the political spectrum. However, I am not a complete Liberal; there are some things I agree more with the conservative right side. I agree with the left side; the government should provide equal opportunities when it comes to services because it will help the average and poor. I agree with the right side and the idea that people make choices; some choose to become doctors and lawyers while others don't graduate high school and work a minimum wage job. It doesn't seem fair to tax the wealthy more in all cases such as the one I just mentioned and it should be a choice whether or not the wealthy give away money to help these people. I agree with the left side; the government should protect political rights but they should not intervene to the point where they infringe on civil rights. I disagree with the status quo on the right side of the political spectrum. There are no preferred values and the government has no place in exposing and using these values as a standard for the country. The government should act as a catalyst for change; time changes why don't we move with it.
Agreeing with both sides of the spectrum showed in another quiz where I scored as a Centrist. The results had said that Centrists try to keep an open mind and hold a middle ground on most issues. Sometimes they favor government intervention and other times they favor individual freedoms. They also tend to go with a "practical" solution rather than taking the side on a political extreme.
On the Political Quiz Show my score was a nine. Most closely related with Hillary Clinton and very Liberal. Hillary Clinton, being very Liberal, is pro-choice. She is on the left side of the political spectrum. On the last quiz I scored a 39 with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama. I scored the highest with Dennis Kucinich, a score of 47. The issues we disagreed on were Iraq and social security, which I don't have much of an opinion on anyways considering I don't know enough about each issue. Next in line was Chris Dodd, a score of 42. We disagree on Iraq, social security and immigration. Out of my top five on this quiz they were all Democrats. In my top ten there were only two Republican Candidates. I agreed with candidates on issues involving choice, freedom, and civil rights. Issues such as; universal health care plan, provide funding for stem cell research, legalizing abortion, opposition to a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as something only between a man and a woman and opposition to the death penalty.
Overall I can say that I do agree more with the left side of the political spectrum. However, I am not a complete Liberal; there are some things I agree more with the conservative right side. I agree with the left side; the government should provide equal opportunities when it comes to services because it will help the average and poor. I agree with the right side and the idea that people make choices; some choose to become doctors and lawyers while others don't graduate high school and work a minimum wage job. It doesn't seem fair to tax the wealthy more in all cases such as the one I just mentioned and it should be a choice whether or not the wealthy give away money to help these people. I agree with the left side; the government should protect political rights but they should not intervene to the point where they infringe on civil rights. I disagree with the status quo on the right side of the political spectrum. There are no preferred values and the government has no place in exposing and using these values as a standard for the country. The government should act as a catalyst for change; time changes why don't we move with it.
Agreeing with both sides of the spectrum showed in another quiz where I scored as a Centrist. The results had said that Centrists try to keep an open mind and hold a middle ground on most issues. Sometimes they favor government intervention and other times they favor individual freedoms. They also tend to go with a "practical" solution rather than taking the side on a political extreme.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Victimless Crimes
In the movie we viewed Friday we were exposed to different victimless crimes. These crimes don't always effect other people or involve other people but laws are simply put into place to make people behave better, act more civilized to form a healthier society. Some people argue that we hold the free right to do whatever we want to our own bodies. There are also those who feel the need to protect innocent people from living in fear because their streets are unsafe.
When discussing the issue with marijuana and other drugs the movie had made the point that making drugs illegal causes more violence. The drugs are scarce causing people to pay high prices which leads to violence when money isn't handled correctly. If drugs were legal there wouldn't need to be drug dealers and the alley attacks. However, legalizing substances that lead to health problems does not protect our citizens which is something the Government is supposed to enforce.
Another issue was prostitution. Should it be legal for a women to sell her body. This is another debate topic. Prostitution isn't considered moral; it goes against God and religion but should religion have a place in Government and stand as a reason of forbidding something. Isn't it a choice what a woman wants to do with her body. A lady on the film was talking about how it was just her job then she added "I don't think people would scrub toilets for a living" continued by saying because you think people wouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be considered a crime. However there are safety issues that go along with prostitution such as spreading diseases like HIV.
One last topic was the right to die with dignity. Giving people the privilege to demand a doctor to let you die or give you medications when your ready to die. Some people don't want a slow painful death, or to grow to an age where they don't remember their own family; they wish to die with dignity. Should they be allowed medications to speed the dying process. What if a person is not in the right state of mind or capable of making a decision like that. This seems like assisted suicide and the person is abandoning family but do people have the right to do whatever they want when it's their body?
All of these victimless crimes seem debatable. The questions remains; should freedom and free rights come before causing harm to ones own body or hurting the image of the society in which we live?
When discussing the issue with marijuana and other drugs the movie had made the point that making drugs illegal causes more violence. The drugs are scarce causing people to pay high prices which leads to violence when money isn't handled correctly. If drugs were legal there wouldn't need to be drug dealers and the alley attacks. However, legalizing substances that lead to health problems does not protect our citizens which is something the Government is supposed to enforce.
Another issue was prostitution. Should it be legal for a women to sell her body. This is another debate topic. Prostitution isn't considered moral; it goes against God and religion but should religion have a place in Government and stand as a reason of forbidding something. Isn't it a choice what a woman wants to do with her body. A lady on the film was talking about how it was just her job then she added "I don't think people would scrub toilets for a living" continued by saying because you think people wouldn't do something doesn't mean it should be considered a crime. However there are safety issues that go along with prostitution such as spreading diseases like HIV.
One last topic was the right to die with dignity. Giving people the privilege to demand a doctor to let you die or give you medications when your ready to die. Some people don't want a slow painful death, or to grow to an age where they don't remember their own family; they wish to die with dignity. Should they be allowed medications to speed the dying process. What if a person is not in the right state of mind or capable of making a decision like that. This seems like assisted suicide and the person is abandoning family but do people have the right to do whatever they want when it's their body?
All of these victimless crimes seem debatable. The questions remains; should freedom and free rights come before causing harm to ones own body or hurting the image of the society in which we live?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)