Just War-- or a Just War

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? is a question posed in the article Just War--or a Just War? by Jimmy Carter. In my opinion whether we go to war or not at the point this was discussed wouldn't change America's world standing. In fact it would be stupid if we went to war just because we had deployed the troops. So I don't think that other countries would look down on us just because we didn't go to war but may in fact look at us with respect for not fighting unnecessarily. So I don't think that America's world standing would change if we don't go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region, but if it did at all only for the better.

A Just War

The prereading question that is asked is "does the War on Terror meet St. Thomas Aquinas' criteria for a just war?" Obviously it does not if you use his exact definition of a just war which includes the idea that the violence of the war must be proportional to the injury suffered to precipitate the war. Many more people have been killed during this war than in the attacks on September 11th. However is this determined by numbers alone? If 100 people die as a result of a terror attack and war is the last resort, but the war stop once 100 people are killed? Kind of unrealistic if you ask me.

Keep America Rolling

I thought that Wagoner had two purposes during his address. One was obviously to lift people up after 9/11. He did a very good job, I think, He showed people that the most important thing was to "keep America Rolling". If we give up and do not press forward, then we give the terrorists the upper hand by allowing them to cause more damage than was already done. This was very important for everyone to hear so soon after the tragedy.

Another purpose was to put in a plug for GM. I found this incredibly annoying. He kept comparing America to GM and how the entire country should follow GM's example. I think this is ridiculous. A country is very different from a car company. Granted he was was comparing it to something that everyone in the room knew and could understand, I still found this a little shallow. I think he had more on his mind than comforting people.

Wow...I dont know!!!!

When reading these three essays i found it hard to draw a connection at first. However, after thinking about them for a little bit of time I found that the only essay that expressed the "promise of america" as we know it was the very first essay, which i agree with the others was more of a promotional speech for GM than an inspirering speech. In this speech he talks about some of the values of American's that has placed the country ahead of all others.

In former president Jimmy Carter's essay he writes about how America's reasons for going to war do not make it a just war. His final sentence, "will enhance our status as a champion of peace and war." makes me think of how America percieves itself as a nation. We do indeed as Wagoner states think of our country as number one, and as Carter states the champion of all nations.

However, the last essay goes into something that we as Americans should be ashamed of. The torture of captured peoples by american soilders. Clearly this and the fact that we engaged in a war that is unjust is a reminder that America or Americans are not as great has it or we percieve ourselves to be.

Heavy terrors with a chance of manipulation

Reading Wagoner's speech put me in the wayback machine. I didn't go too far, just five or six years. Reflecting on the then and the now really forced me to speculate about the culture at the time. I mean, we were all around on the fateful day, but I don't think we were mature or integrated into the "real world" enough to recall the political climate of the time. Wagoner seems to have chosen his words carefully...very carefully. However, his diction gives key to the discrepancy between his intent and his thought process. For example, he claims his employees, as all Americans, are "grieving, they're angry, they're nervous, and they're distracted." Even though he couldn't have possibly talked to all his employees, it seems fair enough to say, given the circumstances. However, he asserts, "...they're looking for leadership more than ever." As head of the company, Wagoner is obviously the go-to guy for his employees if they're looking for leadership. How do we know he isn't just looking to assert his power further, using tragedy as an opportunity for personal gain? This whole "Keep America Rolling" campaign was built around the need to ignore the shakeup in America. However, it seems a little Big Brotherish to me that an authority figure is telling me to buy stuff for the sake of the state. Whether or not Wagoner, specifically, took advantage of the situation is irrelevant. What is relevant is the culture of fear 9/11 created, the power with which people unified, and the ease with which that power and fear was channeled into aggression. Methinks the rhetoric of those in charge knew how to transform the cloud of fear into a fog of war.

Keep America Rolling

While reading this article, I found some of his points to be valid, but it sounded more like a "sales pitch" to me. I agree with the author on the fact that when a tragic event, such as September 11th, occurs the nation has to continue as usual other wise our country will suffer more and the attackers will achieve their goal. Like, the author, Rick Wagoner, states, their will be series of firsts after a tragic event, but it is important to not let it fully impact our lives. While, I understand that it is important to keep a strong economy after these situations, I felt like the article wanted people to buy GM cars to keep the economy strong because GM cares about the country and works to help support the government. Overall, the tragic event impacted our society and the article I felt tried to use the event to promote sales.

Torture: Thinking About the Unthinkable

I found it funny how McCarthy seemed calm and joking in his third paragraph when he was talking about beheading and similar ideas, yet on page 654 he puts an exclamation point after women when saying, "the dark brutality of which men (and women!) have historically shown themselves capable".
But anyway, he does prove his point that torture does have its benefits. It does seem a bit extreme that a terrorist, who has killed people and/or who has information that could save hundreds of innocent lives, can't be interrogated fully because it may bring harm to him.

I think she's got it.

Reading Ehrenreich’s “In Which I Am Offered a ‘Job’”, I had myself an epiphany. She recalls, “Here we are, in a weird corporate niche created by the total failure of the American health-care system, and I am grinning with delight at the deepening misery.” So I racked my mind, trying to think of a job not built upon others’ misery. AFLAC makes money off of people’s inability to procure health insurance from the government. Later on, Mary Kay comes into the picture. How do they make money? By telling women they’re ugly. They play on the insecurity of people regarding their own bodies. Kutztown University wants us to believe we won’t land a job without a degree. Otherwise, why go to college? Our entire economy is built on the fact that people are miserable. And if they’re not, there’s a commercial or movie telling them they ought to be. de Botton is right, workers of the world should relax because the world’s workers are also its consumers. We don’t need our job to give us happiness anymore than we need some powder on our faces. Happiness should be derived from one’s own personal search. Huh…Buddhism in Economics. There should be a course on that.

Everyday Low Wages

Sales clerks at Wal-Mart make only $8.23 per hour on average in 2001. And they're complaining? The average supermarket employee makes $10.35 per hour, I want to know which supermarkets are paying that much! As a sales clerk at Sears I make only $7.29 and most of my co-workers make around the same. We would be thrilled to be making that $8.23 that Wal-Mart employees make. It is true that $8.23 is not enough to support a family on, but there are people supporting families on less then this. Let's face it, chances are if you are working at a Wal-Mart to support your family, there probably aren't many better opportunities out there for you and possibly you should be happy that you have a job at all. Sure some jobs are better and you get better pay, but there are also worse jobs with less pay so before complaining maybe Wal-Mart employees should take a step back and consider what life would be like if they didn't have the job that Wal-Mart has provided them.

Workers of the World, Relax

De Botton's essay was a little saddening to me, especially his last line; "...that work is often more bearable when we don't, in addition to money, expect it always to deliver happiness." I disagree, I think that work could and should deliver something more. Sure, it's not going to deliver happiness all the time, but nothing ever will. Everyone has good and bad days, but if you're lucky enough to find a job that you get some kind of personal fulfilment out of, then you're one of the luckiest people on earth. But I don't think that I'm ignorant for thinking this. Maybe I'm too optimistic, maybe too idealistic. I think that if we all lower our expectations a little, we'd be more satisfied and like our jobs more. Then perhaps the unemployment rate would stop increasing and productivity would go up. But then again, I'm too optimistic and too idealistic. But, somehow, I'm okay with that...

My Parents Think I'm Crazy for Hating Wal-Mart

For so long I knew of Wal-mart's devious activity. I remember reading the the headline of undocumented workers being fired from Wal-mart when I had went on to AOL that day (I switched a while ago so don't think I'm some hypocrite). Wal-Mart employed undocumented immigrants to act as a janitorial staff. I told my mom and she considered it for the time. My brother thinks my hatred of Wal-Mart thinks I'm imitating those who do and only trying to be "in". I like to buy movies and dvds, I'm a big pop culture buff. I insist on buying form no Walmart retailers or any corporate retailers if need be. My mom and brother believe I'm a fool for not wanting to by a Dvd for only 20 bucks, but i stick to my guns.
My mom does the large scale grocery shopping at Wal-mart or Sam's Club, Wal-mart's twisted sister. But yet my parents complain constantly about how products aren't carried routinely, lines are extremely long and how the store is packed with people despite the time or day. If they only knew how Walmart dares to treat it's employees, then soon I wouldn't need to feel so out of place with my hatred for Mal-wart.

Ideal Conversation

A conversation taking place about these issues would ideally be more of a debate. I think that all the issues we are talking about have two sides that should both be given equal time. There should be agreeing as well as disagreeing and everybody's opinion should be heard. The discussion would be fuller with more people voicing opinions as opposed to just a few. With more opinions comes more opportunity for debate and opposing views. Ideally the conversation would be more "heated" with everyone becoming involved and voicing all opinions whether they agree with others or disagree.
I don't believe we are having ideal conversations. We talk mainly about one side of the issue rarely bothering to argue or bring up an opposing point. Whereas we may just agree on things, it would be extremely rare for all of us to agree on every issue. I don't think that it is even possible. Everybody participates, which is great, but a few dominate the conversations giving little thought or even ignoring issues brought up by others. I think we need to listen more to each other and not be afraid to disagree. I think those two ideals combined with more participation would result in better, more ideal conversations.

How should a conversation ideally work...

The arguments should have their theses, implications to one another, and their general connection to our culture, society, etc brought to light. A controlled focus on the issues should be maintained with allowance of even the slightest germane point to be added, so long as it contributes to the progression of the discussion. If digression gets concentrated effort behind it, subtext and inklings that allow us to critique is refused attention, leaving the facade to be scrutinized and the interior yet to be exhumed.
Our conversation over the past two classes has failed to follow the previously mentioned model exactly. However, people have contributed thoughts actively and willingly, though not all. Too much personal input and lack of concentration on the article itself, leaving the conversation to hold more air than weight.

Does work make people happy?

It's hard to answet that question. However I will attempt to do so and if not answer it maybe clarify some of the defining factors. I will do this in an unbiased manor as well because that is my ideal conversation topic! See below!


I agree with De Botton that work being linked to happiness is something that is majorly done in the US. It is difficult to say that all americans are happy with their jobs. The rates of depressed people seem to be going up. If people are supossedly choosing careers that will make them happy why is this happening then? Although there is some link between work and happiness in most cases, there are also many other factors that influence happiness such as one's love life and family life, and personal stress and responsibilities. There are people out there who love their jobs and are depressed and their are people out there who hate their jobs and are depressed. Like most of the topics presented lately, such as success and losers, this question comes down to individual case studies all being different. Career choices and jobs affect a person's happiness at different levels for different people.

Response to the in Class Question

Since I will be absent for class I am combining two responses into one post.
ok.
I wish we would delve deeper into the text. I feel that there should be two components to our discussions the text and the issue at large. In my opinion there should be more emphasis on the text. We should use that as a map which can channel us through the larger scale of the topic. I would like to hear more direct quotation and more tie ins to the text. Also I would like to discuss the text on a different level as well. I think it would be interesting to analyse the text by looking at how it was written. We have read many different articles all with different authors and therefore with different stlyes and methods to approaching their topic. I think it would help us grow as writers to break down and pull apart how someone else writes.
The reading I found most interesting was Alain De Botton's "Workers of the World, Relax". I found it interesting because in the past several months I have thought more about jobs and career choices than anything else. This observation about american culture and work hit home, "We are unique...in allowing our choice of work define who we are..." When reading this I had one of those "lightbulb" moments and thought about how true this observation is. I find this especially true for college students who are in ann akward pre-work stage. We are very much defined by our majors ("work") within the campus life. I have lost count how many times I have introduced myself as , "Hello, I'm Emily and I'm a Crafts major." I do feel like my major defines me. Does that apply to anyone else?

Well I'm not sure how I'm supposed to go about this but I guess I'll just post two seperate posts.

With these issues, what is success and the workforces, the conversation whould be looked at and discussed in an outsiders point of view. The questions raised, such as what is success and who are losers are all questions that go back to an individual's personal beliefs, which are ultimately in some way influenced by our childhood expeiriances. Ideally it would be better if our personal experiances and individual beliefs were extracted in order to enable us to look at these topics from a different point of view without any bias. Of course we all know that this is impossible hence the word "ideal". However, this ideal conversationwould lead to unbiased discussions and discoveries. In comparing this ideal way of conversation to the past two class discussions it is very hard to say that they were conducted in an unbiased way. With a little effort the sescond class discussion was much more unbiased, and I believe this discussion went over much better than the one influenced by our personal ecperiences.

An Ideal Conversation

I thought that the past few discussions have gone pretty well. I wouldn't call them "ideal" necessarily. Personally, I think an "ideal" conversation is one that has a purpose, not just one that that is taking place just for the sake of having a conversation. I didn't find that the topics we were discussing were very appealing to anyone in our class, pardon me if I am wrong, and I felt that the reason our discussions were going nowhere was because no one felt very strong about any of the issues presented. I also don't feel like an "ideal" conversation is one that must include a debate. I honestly don't see the point of arguing simply for the sake of arguing. If people do disagree and can share their points of view with one another, than that's great. But if we all do agree, then what is so horrible about that? Maybe I just don't understand. What I also don't understand is that everyone is expected to contribute by offering their point of view. I know that I don't talk much in class, and that makes me appear lazy and uninvolved in the conversation. I don't talk not because I am uninvolved, I don't talk because I don't have anything worthwhile to say. And I am involved, I just choose to participate more in the listening aspect of the discussion that the talking one. I just don't like to feel like I have to say something just for the sake of saying something.

I think an ideal conversation is one where everyone gets something out of it. One that is productive and lets you see things perhaps in a different perspective. Now i know you're all thinking "what's up with this girl, she just said that arguing is not necessarily good". There are other ways of seeing things in a different light than having a debate. I think a good discussion is one that gets you thinking and one that you can both listen and talk with ease. An ideal conversation is one that keeps you thinking long after it is over.

The Ideal Convo

When dealing with such issues as immigration and the definition of success, a discussion could really go anywhere. In an ideal conversation, the participants must stay on task. Participants must know when they are getting off topic. Another must for a conversation is disagreements because without disagreements the conversation becomes quite bland. Not only does the conversation become bland, but only one side of an issue is exposed. When people begin agreeing with everything that everyone says, only one side of an argument is exposed. It seems that in order to fully discuss an issue from every angle, someone must be playing "devil's advocate." Also, everyone must show respect regarding all particpants and their oppinions.

How does this ideal conversation compare to our discussion on Tuesday? Well first of all everyone was very respectful. There were few interuptions and no blood was shed. There could have been less personal experiences, because that caused us to go off on a few too many tangents. There was not enough disagreements. This goes hand in hand with the personal experiences. People were afraid to disagree with eachother's personal experiences which resulted in little disagreement. We all agreed with eachother and were continually building upon one side of the issue. It is not a bad thing to build off what each other is saying, but when it happens too much only one side of the issue is talked about.

Alain De Botton makes it obvious that he feels that people should not expect any happiness to come from their jobs other than a paycheck. He feels, like so many other Americans, that money equals happiness. I do not quite agree with him. If someone actually enjoys their job and their job brings them happines in areas other than their pockets then good for them. I also believe that it is totally fine to expect a little more from your job, although I am someone who always has high expectations for everything. In a worst case scenerio someone should not have any expectations from their jobs other than money and anything else that makes them happy is simply a plus. The problem is that some people hate their jobs and are constantly complaining about them. These people act has if their jobs SHOULD ALWAYS bring them extra happiness. It is one thing to have a few extra expectations concerning your job, but thinking your job will constantly make you happy in other areas of your life is another story.

These topics are discussed-ing

Conversations should start with a “They Say.” This could be someone else’s “I say,” but it should ultimately be like dropping a boat into a flowing river. Of course, the point at which we’re dropped into the river depends on what the end result is. Better yet could be letting someone decide the entrance point. Let us decide at which point in the conversation we want to enter. For instance, do we start with the assumption that there is a god or debate the options of a deity’s existence before we start talking about abortion? It depends on the goal the moderator has in mind. Of course, ideally, I would say let us decide where the conversation starts. This aids the concept of equality in conversation – the greatest value in the ideal conversation. For the conversation to be effective, it is imperative that everyone contributes. We need a forest of ideas and opinions. People don’t even have to agree with the opinion they throw into the mix. In fact, they shouldn’t always agree with it. Dissent’s healthy in these conversations. And how can anyone disagree with the need for Satan’s advocacy? While everyone needs to talk, everyone should be pay equal time pay attention to what’s going on in the conversation. A balance between listening and talking is the constant challenge in contributing to a conversation. Regarding conventions, a person should be able to explain their idea completely before its subject to comment. Only after that person is sure they’ve represented themselves correctly should the cycle continue to the next person. Also, the comments should make a chain, with each new comment relating to the previous one, but also spanning into new territory. Maybe not comments, but the individual itself. I don’t know. The extended metaphors aren’t working out for me today. However, that, in essence, is the ideal conversation.These past two days of conversation have been on a steady path to this ideal conversation. They haven’t reached it, but we collectively realized the flaws in the conversations. For instance, Thursday’s discussion lacked tension and argument. On Tuesday, we realized made more general comments, trying to stay away the personal comments that hinder dissent. In the future, we’ll probably start to relate more stuff back to the actual texts, the chains from which our conversation starts. We move to the ideal in baby steps. Luckily, our baby has matured past crawling. Now we all need to change the diaper.