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.

Their poverty leads to our privilege

During American Studies class a couple days ago, we were asked to look at something we use everyday, and then ask a deeper question and find the answer. When I went to complete this assignment, I was shocked at the results.

I chose my North Face winter coat, something I wear everyday and rarely even think about, simply throwing it on to keep warm. I found information from the National Labour Committee, which exposes the horrible working conditions to make the jacket I wear without a care in the world. I wondered who made my coat, and found the answer to be women in El Salvador, and when they sew a coat that will ultimately be sold for 165 dollars in the U.S., they are paid 94 cents for each one. They can't afford basic needs like milk and food for their children, many having to take them out of school to help pay for these necessary items. In addition to the extremely low pay, the women are sometimes forced to do 47 hours of overtime a week in a room with no ventilation, and it can get up to 100 degrees! To make the matter even worse, they are completely denied rights to the freedom of association, immediately getting fired if they join the legal workers union.

These conditions are clearly reminicent of the Chicago factories during the 20's, and I would have no idea about them if not for digging just a little bit deeper into the jacket I would normally think nothing of. This whole assignment also made me think more deeply about poverty and privilege; if not for the workers' poverty in other countries, we wouldn't have some of the privileges of material wealth we enjoy today. If we all thought more about the items we take for granted, we would truly realize how much work, even poverty, goes into making them perfect, just so we can use them mindlessly.

Modern-Modern Times

In American Studies class the other day we watched Modern Times, a Charlie Chaplin satirical comedy that came out during the Great Depression, a poverty stricken time that's comparable to the economic crisis today. Apparently movie fans in New York City had the same idea, because this month, according to CBS news, they have been lining up for a showing of Modern Times, with tickets being sold at the depression-era price of 35 cents a ticket.
Of course one of the purposes of the showing was to be simple fun, and get people's minds off of the current financial crisis. This is demonstrated by the old newsreel reports, the band playing "Depression-era tunes", and even the bread handed out on the sidelines to get people in the right mood for the movie. However, it also served a deeper purpose. These movies serve as a common activity for people during a time when they feel so alone. They can come together and be supportive, even through just sitting in the same theater. According to Patron Perry Grumman, "People wanted to team up because there was too many people out of work, too many people who were suffering, and they kind of looked out for each other." Perhaps the producers of these movies are smarter than we thought, and the element of unifying the people is something we need in our current times.

Is Black History Month Unnecessary?

The world has been in a daze of happiness ever since Obama has been elected president, and there is nothing wrong with being hopeful about the face of racism in America. However, people seen ti have taken it a step to far, suggesting that we stop having Black History Month. Phillip Morris, a columnist from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wonders: "At what juncture, then, does Black History Month run the risk of becoming a pointless exercise in race chest-bumping?" He represents all of those who believe that at this point, Black History Month is only reminding us of racial tensions and increasing separation.

While I see the logic in Morris' point, I must strongly disagree. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "students still learn more about white achievers than they do about black ones." Yes, Obama's win was a huge step, it will surely continue to produce this much excitement for years to come. However, I could never truthfully say that there's no racism left in the world. Steps still need to be taken in order to achieve complete equality, and I think Black History Month is a great aid in this task, and should definitely not be cancelled. Even Obama himself has said that Black History Month is "a chance to examine the evolution of our country and how African Americans helped draw us ever closer to becoming a more perfect union."

Yes, America has made leaps and bounds in decreasing racism since reconstruction, but we can't get so full of ourselves that we get rid of the very things that help us continue to do so.

UnderRomanticized?

The other day I was buying a pack of peanut M&Ms when my friend stopped me, saying "make sure you don't get salmonella!" Despite the fact that the plants with the infected peanuts have been shut down, the hysteria continues on. According to the Plainview Daily Herald, the outbreak has caused more than 600 illnesses, and 9 deaths.

This made me think of Romanticizing, the topic we've been learning about in American Studies class. It is when something is made into a bigger deal than it is, the example we talked about was our new President Obama, and how some media falsely portrays him as the answer to all the world's problems. I found the salmonella to be quite a different case. Instead of being romanticized, or made into a big deal, there was almost no coverage in the beginning. I remember seeing a tiny headline in the Chicago Tribune last week about peanut butter being recalled, and it was barely even big enough to be an article.

It made me start to think, what if its underRomanticization led to the mass hysteria now? If the weight of the issue was announced right away, perhaps it would have gained the public's trust, therefore preventing the fear now. Of course this isn't the same situation as most of the examples of Romanticization, but the same principles still apply. It didn't need to be overstated, but if the outbreak was made into a little bit bigger of a deal, we could avoid the problems now, which will probobly continue for a while.

shamWOW!

In American Studies class on Friday, we talked about romanticizing, or making things seem better than they actually are. During our discussion, a commercial immediatly came to mind for me. It's an advertisement for a towel called the shamwow, and after watching it I was pretty tempted to call the number on the screen and buy one.

If you strip away the colorful commercial, the towels are really just extra-absorbant and let you cut them into pieces. However, the over-enthusiastic spokesperson goes on and on for about 10 minutes with a ridiculous microphone, and convinces everyone that the shamwow will be the only cleaning item you ever need. The commercial used lines like "The item pretty much sells itself", making it seem like some undiscovered magic item.

Even though towel choice never seemed that important to me, by romanticizing this item, I was tricked into believing something was much better than it was. It's so interesting that before learning about romanticizing, I was so much more suspectible to falling victim to clever advertisers.