1. Names. Making progress on placements now? I’ll ask for journals about every other week, probably, and will give you a schedule for those soon.
We also need to schedule at least one showing of Platoon before next Tuesday. Thursday evening? Sunday? Monday?
2. In the News. Lots of interesting stuff . . .
Ron Krehbiel opinion piece http://mennolink.org/article/item/1043340374
“A simplistic philosophy of "destroy evil before it destroys you" under-estimates evil. Imagine we walk through a vast marketplace crowded with people. A handful of thugs set upon us. We are bigger and stronger, but by the time we recover from our shock they have dispersed into dark allies.
Many in the crowds consider us friends and lament the violence of the thugs. But their homes ring the market. Families and possessions will be endangered by a big fight. They will be angry
if we escalate things by retaliating. Many also believe we have been bullies ourselves and share the resentments of the thugs against us, even while they reject their violence. These may join the fray against us if we go on the attack.
Could we wipe out some bad guys? Sure. But at the price of multiplying our enemies? At the risk of turning the marketplace into a permanent battleground?
2003 is not 1940. Hitler belonged to
, and no one else shared the resentments he used to arouse Germans to war. Those directing terror at us today come from communities around Germany
the globe, and millions share their resentments. Fortunately for us, even most of their sympathizers reject the violence of the terrorists. But we lose ground every day that we ignore legitimate concerns at the grassroots and act in ways that endanger or seem to humiliate others.
The truth is that the thugs point to some legitimate complaints against us. We have indeed allowed thirst for oil to drive us into close partnerships with brutal dictators. We have indeed been blatantly one-side in an ancient, complex conflict while the other side has lived homeless for 50 years in refugee camps. We have indeed flaunted our materialism and self-preoccupation in
Hollywooddebaucheries piped daily to TVs around the globe, while offering small crumbs to those who suffer. Our know-it-all posturing regarding Saddam has within 18 months reversed a global outpouring of sympathy after 9/11. . . .
If we begin with modesty and openness, we stand a chance of engaging the wisdom and support of moderate voices worldwide in removing those things that stir fringe groups to violence.
still holds a wondrous grip on the hearts of many. Friends on every hand would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us if we acted as true partners. But we'll have to leave the cowboy act America
I read about Bush's preparation for the state of the union address.
Monitor" said he would need to justify war with
reassure people about the
thing, he would need to persuade the public to support war and deal with the
economy, and I couldn't find anything about the state of the union address
in the left of center newspapers.
I read my article from the
National Review. It was called
"Don't Give Hussan the War He Wants." The president is getting very frustrated
because the inspectors are not finding any clear evidence that the are weapons over there.
Hussan wants to be remembered in history as a
great warrior, not one that has been beaten down as some have in the past. Basically saying that Hussan wants to go to war with the
I read an interesting article in The Counterpunch. The article ( www.counterpunch.org/jackson01202003.html ) written by Bruce Jackson titled Bush, Blacks, and Jews is about affirmative access into colleges and universities. I agree with the idea of affirmative access. People have been talking for several years of compensation to African-Americans for slavery and segregation in the past. Many are against it because, how do you say what is enough and how do you distribute it? also, what is it? What do you give people for their families oppression? Money? Land? I feel the best way is to give advantages in education. The author of the article says that Bush had an easy access into good schools. He had average grades and yet made it into Yale, and , as the author said, it is not hard to see that daddy's money and political status helped him get there. In a small view , I don't approve of anyone having special ways into college, though it happens everywhere from Yale to Bluffton, but in a large view, I think this is the only rational way to give those the majority has oppressed a way to rise up to the equality they unfortunately still haven't reached. Besides, there are many colleges and universities in this country. If one denies you, try another. That's how it works. From the article, I can see why Bush is worried. With Affirmative access, an average white rich male student, even with all his fathers' money behind him, will be denied entrance to a highly selective college while an extremely brilliant middle-class African-American woman with only intelligence, aspirations, and hard work behind her, will be entered into the college.
Wouldn't that be a terrible thing.
the various news sources on the Web, I chose to compare arrticles
in The New York Times, Townhall.com, and. The deal
The article that I read was from the national review talking about how SUV's
are not what is causing all the air polution, it is all the cars that came
years bfore the SUV's because the emmsion standards were way lower than they
are now. I think that it is funny that all this talk is going on about
SUV's when we know that they are not going to be outlawed, if they want to
do something about it they should just make standards fit with car
standards, not to mention I don't think that the main point with SUV's is
air pollution but that the burning of oil is what is the main problem.
Figure out a way to cut down on the gas used not on air pollution.
Allan King, Jr.
The idea of
chemical weapons and warfare of
The article that I found on the Internet was a story
in Newsweek magazine
article is a personal account from a 22-year old
soldier (Sgt. Matthew Figley) stationed along the
Iraq-Kuwait boarder. His interview was very
interesting. His overall thoughts and passion towards
war amazed me. I guess that I just find it hard to
imagine anyone enthusiastically saying “I want to go
to war.” At one point he actually says that he was
sorry that he missed out on the
He called that a “heartbreaker” and said that he isn’t
worried about dying, its just a part of life. He said
that he feels that there is no stress over there and
that “life is a cakewalk.” I just can’t imagine
anyone being excited and anticipating war. When I
think about it though, I would rather have people in
that mindset in our military who are not afraid to do
what needs to be done.
The current topic I chose to write about is the juvenile on death row found here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76690,00.html . The article states that four chief justices wish to review the death penalty for juveniles. In this case a juvenile was adjudicated for the burning of a live couple in the trunk of their car, naturally the prosecution chased after the death penalty. The four justices main argument thus far is “The practice of
executing such offenders is a relic of the past and is inconsistent with
evolving standards of decency in a civilized society," Justice John Paul
Stevens wrote then. He was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.” (Internet site www.foxnews.com )They make a valid point. One major point that must be pointed out is that the adjudicated
juvenile has not been found mentally retarded nor criminally insane, what
might save this adjudicated juvenile fate is the fact the he is only 17 at
the time of his offense. My solution would be to imprison this offender for
the rest of his natural delinquency, upon completion of adulthood sentence
the offender to death. Many people will disagree with me. This offender as
we know thus far was competent, in a sane state, and well aware of his
actions. Rehabilitation for an individual like this maybe effective, but the
safety of our communities and prevention of future actions such as this
should under no circumstance rest on a might chance. People will argue this
offender did wrong and does deserve to die, but then I ask why does he
deserve to live?
Article Supreme Court Won't Hear Juvinile Death Penalty Case
This article got my attention because I would agree that the death
penalty for anyone under 18 is cruel. The supreme court is refusing to hear
the case of a boy of commited a crime when he was 17 years old. I don't
think that it is right to put anyone under 18 on death row because they are
not yet adults and their parents still have most of the control in the
household. I think teenagers mature a lot from the age of 17 to when they
turn 18 so how can you give a death sentence to a person who is not yet
thinking on an adult level, it just doesn't seem fair. Yeah they did a
horrible act, but how can you say they deserve to die because at that age
they are more of followers than thinking things through for themselves. I
think the supreme court shoudl hear this case and think about what these you
people are going through when they get sentenced at such a young age,
especially when adults get off everyday for the same offense that these
teenagers are sentenced to death for.
Supreme Court Won't Hear Juvenile Death Penalty Case
This article talks about how people (the 4 justices) have complained that it
is cruel and unusual punishment to kill those who are on death row who are
under the age of 18. It says in the article "While they appear to be
fully-grown physically and may seem to be functioning as adults, their
judgment and impulse-control are simply not that of adults," attorney Steven
Presson told justices in filings. But I feel that if they are of that age,
they will know the difference between right and wrong and if that is what
the jury wants to give to the criminal as their punishment, then so be it. I
don't think just because they aren't 18, they shouldn't be punished as
adults, they for sure know the difference between right and wrong and know
what they are doing and know that it is wrong. I really don't have a stance
on the death penelty but I think that all who commit crimes should face the
appropriate punishment whether is be life in prison or the death penatly.
On Gender Issues, from last time.
From Since Feeling Is First, on equality (105)
4. War and Progress. The first half of the 20th century, not such a big time frame, hmm? The century began with empires, colonialism, the White Man’s Burden, and a great confidence about the ability of white males of European descent to make the world run more or less the way they thought it should.
Men like John Dewey and William James—disciples of pragmatism, believers in reason and progress and the ability of human beings to make the world better. James’ lecture “The Moral Equivalent of War.” http://www.arts.adelaide.edu.au/personal/DHart/ETexts/War/WilliamJames/MoralEquivalentWar1906.html
The Progressive Era, and Populist leaders like William Jennings
Bryan; reform movements on labor, gender, and other issues—Prohibition and
women’s suffrage by 1920.
2 spends considerable time on the European/world side of all this, but it’s
relevant to our study as well. One little window: some excerpts from Matthew
Stevenson’s “Roads to
Contrast this decadent little world with the realities of WW I—endless trench warfare, suicidal frontal assaults on machine gun positions, mustard gas. The romantic view of war and the other one—two poems from English war poets, both killed in the trenches.
149. The Soldier
IF I should die, think only this of me;
That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.
Dulce Et Decorum Est
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots 5
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; 10
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, 15
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; 20
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest 25
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
eventual result of the war: not a controlled, contained little enterprise with
some shuffling of boundaries and shifting of powers, but unprecedented
destruction and loss of life.
War II as “the Good War.” Americans have made a major effort to remember it
that way, surely, especially since
quite ready to grant that, given the alternatives after
The costs. About sixty million dead, mostly civilians. 25 million in the Soviet Union—about a tenth of the population—a figure that the U.S. might have done well to recall during the days of the Cold War, when we widely assumed that the Soviets would jump into another war at a moment’s notice if they saw the slightest chance of success. Six million in Poland, four million in Germany, two million in Japan, 1.5-2 million in Yugoslavia. From 5% civilian deaths in WW I to 66% in WW II, mostly because the fighting was no longer localized/restricted to narrow battlefields.
Strategic bombing. Deliberate attacks on civilians en masse,
for the first time in
when I searched for “
And the atomic bombings. Even in 1994-95, too controversial
to allow a Smithsonian exhibit that would have told some of the results, and
recognized the possibility that the war might have ended without either
nuclear bombs or an invasion of
What were the options? As I said earlier, there were few good ones by 1941, or even 1938. There was some resistance to Nazi rule, especially to the deportation of Jews and others to the death camps. But for all the Schindlers and Corrie Ten Booms, there were thousands of others who went along.
come up with a plausible nonviolent answer, probably we need to think back
further. Throughout the period from 1914-1945 (and beyond), the logic of
warfare overwhelmed all else as a way of resolving disputes among the nations
did that happen? Not because anybody conquered anybody else. But because trade
and travel were established, and it became far more profitable for everybody
involved to do business than to shoot at each other.
In the Muenster cathedral there’s a plaque about a ceremony, an exchange with
Coventry Cathedral in
How do you really know who is telling the truth? The authors of The
Missing Peace repeatedly tell us that history textbooks taught in school are
biased on the side of patriotism and are leaving out important events and
detail. But who’s to say that the authors of this book aren’t doing exactly
the same thing? Are they being biased on the side of pacifism and
distorting the facts to support their views? I continually ask myself this
throughout the reading. It’s easy to see the numbers, such as the amount of
lives lost in World War II, and wonder if there wasn’t a better way. But
who’s to say that the number of lives lost wouldn’t have been just as great
if not greater if the
million lives, mostly civilian, being lost in the course of this war (201);
but how many of these were due to the Holocaust?
Throughout these chapters the authors infer that “violence…produced more violence” (175), but how can they prove this? I think that if our nation does not defend ourselves, or in some cases intercede before it becomes necessary to defend ourselves, we will still be the recipient of violence, whether we retaliate or not. William James was quoted as saying
“…peacemakers should not ignore or deny human impulses to violence, but
rather credit their power and find productive ways to channel them” (182).
I must say I absolutely agree. Find alternative means to violence, discover
ways to avoid war and you will have my full support, as long as these
alternatives produce results and still offer protection. I hate war, I hate
the idea of people killing other people, I hate that innocent lives are
destroyed in the crossfire, and so if there is any successful means to avoid
it then I say go for it. But I will not passively stand by and allow people
to destroy this world and threaten my freedom without fighting and
supporting those who fight.
Though the reading for
tomorrow I some of it disturbing. I
believe it was during the Philipine-American war,
that the americans viewed
dark skinned people as savages. It was
so bad that one African American Soldier switch sides and joined the Philipine army. Also
around this time American International Expositions and World Fairs used
nonwhite people as part of their exhibits to show their savagness
and inferiority. The country made an
"Open Door Policy" which involved
Theodore Roosevelt once said "all great races have been fighting
races." As I read for this response about the Spanish-American War in the
book, I turned on the History Channel and the new documentary TR: An American Lion was just coming on. So as I read, I
also watched this show about his life. As the historians said of
I am glad to finally read about World War II in this book. I sometimes laugh
when I hear of World War II as the "good" war since the atrocities of
the Axis powers wasn't the reason why we went to
war. If it was, then the war would have been a good war. I also find it
hypocritical to say that we fought for justice when we put Asian-Americans in
concentration camps during the war and, as did every country for centuries, did
not view Jews as completely equal. There has always
been ill-feelings towards Jews, it was just
I'm not so good at understanding this history stuff that we've been reading.
But I'm confused at the title of Chapter 10 "The Good War":Misremembering
World War II". The Good War? I don't understand how any war can be good. It
was said on page 200 that "the 400,000 U.S deaths in WWII, almost all
military personnel, were agonizing for famililies affected, but the
triumphant national cause made their grief meaningful and bearable". How can
this be true. I don't know how anyone can say that a death being meaningful
and bearable. The thoughts of anyone dying is a horrible thought no matter
who it is. I couldn't even imagine having my worst enemy die. That thought
just boggled my mind.
Violent Means Undermine Progress: War and Peace 1898-1918
The Spanish American War of 1898 was fought
wanted their help in other ways. I don't think that Americans had the right
to interfere with
help. We could have supported them in other ways than to send unwanted
troops over there. By us going they didn't get their
was the point in fighting a war. The war against the Philipines doesn't
make sense to me at all. I think as a nation who had to fight for their
independence, we would undersand why other countries wanted their freedom
and we wouldn't want to
dominate other countries. Just because the
became more and more powerful doesn't give them the right to kill innocent
people because they don't want to
be ruled under the
"The Good War": Misremembering World War II
The thing that bothered me most about this chapter was the fact that
Americans didn't care about all the Jewish people dieing all they wanted was
dieing because of their religion and all we could think about was getting
Americans, but there is more to life than just worrying about ourselves. We
are no better than the Germans were because we took Japanese Americans and
put them in concentration camps because of their etnicity, when none of them
had anything to do with the
attack. And to think that
have been avoided, if the
just makes me wonder what our government was thinking. Mayer said, "I do
not want Hitler to rule the world, and if he wins the war he will. The
trouble is that if we win it hw will rule the world anyway." (213) I agree
with his statment because even though Hitler lost the war, he brought the
world to war with each other, and in turn we all lost so much. So in the
end the question that has to be asked is, was i worth it?
Raudel Hermosillo Jr.
Juhnke and Hunter came up with what I feel is a major contradiction that I
In his new spiritual conversion, that convinced him if God wanted him to
fight he would and God would protect him, he no longer was a “literal
follower of the teachings of God”, he was a soldier fighting for survival.
than God protects those who strive to do the right thing regardless of
consequence or casualty.
By declaring one Alvin C.
York the “greatest
contradiction to their entire “search for non-violent alternatives in United
States history”. I will not dishonor Mr. York’s heroic war actions, he is a
hero, a war hero with 25 dead Germans, and 132 captured Germans, under his
belt. The contradiction is here, after only two attempts of being exempted
from this violent war, he
conformed to the
would this country be today if Rosa Parks gave up her seat on that bus after
the “white man” yelled at her twice to get off his self-proclaimed seat?
making is this minority of a minority-female and African American- was more
heroic by being firm to what she believed in. Had she conformed to the
segregation aspect of the country back then, segregation perchance, would
still be at large today. Therefore I believe one Rosa Parks is more of a
hero than Mr. York, she stood for what she believed in and never budged for
the “white man”, or the
been an even greater hero had he a little more Rosa Parks in him and stood
his ground on his true feelings of the war, and not choosing to conform to
I have never been much of a history person, but I must
say that I find World War II amazing. The idea that
World War II is referred to as "The Good War" is
disheartening. Although when you really think about
it, we have always been taught that of all the wars
that the United States has been involved in, World War
II seems to be the most justified. We are presented
with several reasons why it was justified, but it
seems that we rarely ever hear about the overall
devastation, injustices, and losses that resulted from
World War II. The statistics that the book gave
concerning the war were shocking to me. Around
400,000 people were killed, a significant portion of
them being civilians. That number seems almost
unreal. I remember reading a sentence in the chapter
that said some felt that the triumph of the war was
more than what was lost. I do not understand how that
can even be rationalized.
I found the particular section on the mistreatment of
the Japanese Americans to be very interesting. The
fact that the
112,000 Japanese Americans from the west coast and
shipped them to concentration camps for no valid
reason is amazing to me. To detain that many people
for the reason of "military necessity" even though
there was not one case or any evidence showing that
any of these Japanese American individuals attempted
to carry out sabotage or anything along those lines,
was a clear violation of civil, not to mention, human
rights. Overall, World War II resulted in both good
things (the end of the Holocaust, a more unified
the economy) and the obvious bad. I think that it is
very hard to look back and think “What if?”
In most of these articles it shows that most of the wars at the beginning of the 20th century may have used violence but we always got what we wanted. We had to sacrifice lives to get where we are today. When McKinley came into office there was a big imperialistic movement because McKinley was not for that. Many more peace movements sprang up at this point. At one point in the reading it said that only minor disputes could be the only ones solved nonviolently. I believe there will always be violence no matter what we do. There are many aggressive people out there and when you come across one with very strong opinions you will not lay down so they will fight. Those kinds will not come to an end nonviolently. That is why the world is like it is today. The authors said that World War II was the “good” war. We won that Great War with national unity by fighting. It had to be done. We were not going to lie down against Adolf Hitler. He was going to go all out violently as we have known through his past So we took it to him. I believe we are always up for making peace. But if someone is going to use violence then they better be ready. We use violence only when we need to. We try to resolve nonviolently but it does not work most of the time so we use violence to beat them. We are too powerful why are they trying.
"universal impulse of heroic self-sacrifice" or "The Moral Equivalent of
War" either statement to me seems totally off base. How can we find ways to
channel our natural aggressiveness to go to war? So what we are saying is
that there are a bunch of killers running around just waiting to go to war?
I don't think so. The only natural instinct that we have to is protect what
is ours, going to war is just one way to do that and I don't know many
people that want to go out and risk their lives constantly. Is war
glorified somewhat in our history? Yes, but that does not make us a bunch
of killers running around saying war, ya, ya, war, war. No, we do what we
feel is necessary, whether or not what we do is right is a diferent matter.
Allan King, Jr.
Several things came to mind while reading Tuesday's assignment.
1) Pacifism and violence seem to have been categorized as feminine and masculine. Is that true today? Compare and contrast the leaders of each side before WW1. On one side you have individuals such as Theodore Roosevelt ( a miliatry maniac) and on the opposite end of the spectrum is Jane Addams, a prominant pacifist. Going into the trenches and defending freedom by killing and destroying lives is seen as manly, courageous, and something all male should be ready to do. Looking at the players in the situation we find ourselves in today, I can't help but wonder if these same sorts of ideas are running through anyone's mind. Trying to find a prominant female perspective throughout this is difficult.
2) Propaganda plays a major role in every war. The point is to justify violence so that no one will second guess the actions that will follow. During the Super Bowl, two more of the "drug money supports terrorists" ads were run. Identifying one supreme evil, whether it is communism, terrorism, etc., may very well get the majority of the population on your side. However, is it right to highlight the evil actions of one nation and slide yours or those of other nations under the carpet?
3) I can't help
but call indiviuals such as Ida Tarbell,
Florence Kelley, and Carrie Chapman Catt "whislteblowers." Was this a predeseccor
to those who brought to light the criminal acts of corporate