American kills his own men: Embarrasing or National Tragedy?

Upon reading Mr. Lawler and Ms. Logan's post about the U.S. soldier who killed 5 of his own men, I was fascinated with both its similarities and differences to the story of Pat Tillman. It's true that both were stories of multiple U.S. soldiers being killed by one of their own men, but the similarities seem to end there. In the Pat Tillman story, the men were killed by accident, the killer thought they were the enemy in all the confusion. However, in the more recent story the soldier was provoked to kill by Post Tramatic Stress Disorder.

One of the most imortant differences, however, is that Pat Tillman was a celebrity, while the soldiers of Iraq remain anonymous. This shouldn't make a difference in how the situation was handled, but of course it did. The Pat Tillman story was hidden until absolutely necessary, as if it's an embarrasment to the country. The modern story, on the other hand, was put out immediatly into the news as a national tragedy. I found this fascinating, and while it could be the change in situation, it struck me as funny that they would be handled so differently just because one person is more well known than another.

Regarding the Lawler/Logan blog post on the same topic, I wouldn't consider the U.S. soldier to be a villain. He was clearly ill and cannot be held responsible for his actions. This reminded me a lot of the movie we watched in class, "Born on the 4th of July". Ron Kovic, the main character of the movie, went crazy from the war after an injury stopped him from living the same way as before. War can drastically change people, and it's tragic. I find the U.S. soldier not a villain, but a victim of war, along with those he killed.

The Iran Situation today-really

In American Studies class, we've been learning a lot about the pretty modern situation in Iran, how they might be in the process of creating nuclear warheads, and what the U.S. should do about it. We are doing a simulation where we must pretend that it's a confirmed fact that Iran has a nuclear warhead, and are going to test it tomorrow. While this situation spans over the past few years, I decided to look up what's really going on in Iran right now.

I found an interview online with Linton F. Brooks, the Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to the interview, Iran is still a serious problem to the nonproliferation regime, because the possiblility of them having nuclear warheads could encourage Iran's neighbors such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to do the same. The article also focuses on relations with countries we've talked about in class, such as China and Russia. I thought this was an interesting connection from a modern to even more modern issue!

The War against the Flu

Besides the news, it has become pretty obvious from every single person I've talked to that a Swine Flu has been given from pigs to humans, and while no U.S. citizens have died from it yet, there have been enough Mexican cases to instill a serious fear in everyone, causing people to go so far as to wear surgical masks around daily.

What interested me the most was how something like a possible epidemic can show strange similarities to war. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, the Dow Jones transportation average has tumbled 5%. Both diseases and war can instill the fear of travel, the fear of being unsafe no matter where you go. People are experiencing this now, afraid to catch the flu from anyone, and those in the Vietnam war were afraid to go anywhere and become an innocent and unwilling victim.

Another interesting thing is that the Mexican Peso dropped 4% verses the dollar, which represents inflation, something that happens very often during wartime. In fact, during WWII money became so worthless that people would burn it for fuel, and it cost less than buying wood.

Obviously war and disease are not the same, however, some similarities are undeniable. They are both fighting against an enemy that needs to be stopped using the right strategy. Hopefully the U.S. will be able to contain the Swine flu, before it spreads and places seige on the rest of the country.

Is War ever Worth it?

In American Studies class, we started a unit on war, and one of the leading questions is if it is ever worth the consequences. At first, the answer may seem like an obvious yes or no, but every story has more than one side, and I decided to look at war from both. I took a more recent war, the Iraq war.
When America was pondering the decision of whether or not to go to war, there were many pro-war and many as well who were anti-war. The evidence in favor of going to war was that The United States had the authority to use force against Iraq, and they had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had a terrible human rights record, and deserved to be punished for all the misery he'd caused, and Democracy could have stood as an example to surrounding countries. Also, the cost of containment would actually be higher than war itself. All this, as well as the fact that Bush and United States' role as the fixer were at stake, was good reason to go to war.
While this may make the answer seem obvious, one has to take a look at the other side. The evidence against going to war with Iraq included the fact that there was no hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction, as well as all the innocent civilians and soldiers who would be killed. There was possibility that weapons would be launched at alli countries, and also that there could be vengeful attacks from terrorist groups.
While all this evidence is very persuasive, both sides just seems to make it confusing. Maybe the only thing there is to learn from this, is that when looking at war, there is never an obvious answer to whether or not it's worth it.

Looking between the Black and White

Last week, we read a section from "Everything's an Argument" about visual arguments, and how to see through them. In class a couple of days ago, we learned a lot about reading political cartoons, and detecting political satire. One of the things we looked at was a cover of "The New Yorker", which included Barack and Michelle Obama dressed as terrorists, doing the "terrorist fist-bump" with a burning American flag in the oval office. Obviously this was satirical, and it was making fun of of the rumors flying around that Obama was muslim, based only on the fact that his middle name was Hussein. I found another political cartoon that was quite interesting, on the same topic.
This one features a small Barack Obama and the iconic Uncle Sam, doing the fist bump as well. I think that this is actually based off of the cover of "The New Yorker", therefore satirizing an already satirical piece. However, this comic has a positive message that America approves of Obama, and that he will do a good job as President. To understand this comic, you would have to have previously known about both the controversy and the magazine cover. It's so interesting how a visual aid can look meaningless, but with a little previous knowledge it can mean so much more.

Changing Times, Changing Advertisements

A few weeks ago in class, we did an activity where we decoded advertisements from magazines, and found out how they were actually manipulative, targeting groups of people with the quality they specifically want. For example, an advertisement for Verizon played on teenagers's needs to be included, by showing a group of people enclosed in a circle all with verizon phones, while one is on the outside. Another phone advertisement appealed to people who have retired, wanting a more relaxed lifestyle. They chose to show this by having the phone opened to a recently called list, with "The Club" listed as a frecuent contact. This played on the percieved want of a lifestyle that will allow people to go to their country club often. However, these advertisements really seem to work, regardless if whether a phone can actually provide this or not.
I found a great example of this same concept, but instead of playing on a specific age group, the advertisement is specifically focused on those affected by the enconomic situation. Take a look at this Domino's pizza ad. First off, the ad uses David Brandon, the CEO of Domino's as the seller to add automatic ethos. The advertisement uses lines such as "I'm bailing out you hardworking people on main street", to give his target buyers the sense of security they want. What's interesting is how strange this seems, when you think about it. One pizza clearly won't help your financial situation any more than another kind, even if it does cost a little bit less, but when a CEO tells you it will you almost believe him. It's interesting to think about just how much advertisements affect the products we buy every day.

What Characterizes Wealth?

When I was reading the Great Gatsby by Fitzgerald this weekend, I noticed all the different things used to characterize great wealth and affluence, as well as the different levels of it. For example, the narrator, Nick, talks a lot about his home in the West egg. Although he appears quite wealthy, he describes the neighborhood as what we would call "striking it rich", and therefore looked down upon by the more affluent East egg. People who live there, such Nick's cousin Daisy and her extremely wealthy husband Tom Buchanon, look down upon the West egg because they have come unto money by inheritance, the much more respectable way in the 1920's.

This made me think a lot about how much attitudes regarding affluence have changed throughout the years. In the 20's the old money way was simply viewed upon as better in society, and those who came upon it on their own were just lucky and undeserving of the same lifestyle. However, in modern times it is truly the self made man who earns respect. The "American Dream" has become to earn a living on your own, and it has even gone so far as to be more respectable to come from a difficult background growing up. Society also views people who have inherited money, such as Paris Hilton, as silly and ridiculous. It's so interesting how much views have changed, and so difficult to say if it will continue to stay this way far into the future.