I Can Haz Phlebotomy?

I thought this most wonderful novel (an excellent choice, Ms. LaMagdeleine, if I do say so myself) presented a rather interesting collection of anti-war rhetoric. Having said that, I only somewhat agree with the book's opinion. Yes, it may be true that if no one signed up to fight wars, we wouldn't have wars, but the reality is that this is not the reality. If one nation were to militarily attack another, should they not fight back? This is a situation in which I don't think Trumbo elaborates (or even explains) the "right thing to do". Of course, if this scenario were the case, I know that most of you would fight to defend your country, because "your lives are at risk." This book made me realize that lives are not truly at risk if the nation under attack peacefully capitulates. But is this freedom? Maybe it is. Maybe the attacker is the one supporting freedom. Or their idea of it. But whatever.

Interesting

One part of the book that I found really interesting is a passage from page 121: “If the thing they (soldiers) were fighting for was important enough for them to die for then it was also important enough for them to be thinking about it in the last minutes of their lives.” I think this is a very important concept in the explanation of Bonham’s views to the reader. It shows that he is able to ask a rhetorical question to which there is only one answer.

Johnny Got His Beverage (Keep it Funky)

These two pieces (March of the Flag and Johnny Got His Gun) are related because they are essentially antithetical. March of the Flag is a great manifestation of someone who can't spell manifest destiny. Manifest Destiny was the highly imperialistic idea that it was by divine will that Americans were expected to spread their way of life across the world. Beveridge also inserted some elements of racial superiority by calling Americans "a people sprung from the most masterful blood of history...." This is evident of the late-nineteenth/early-twentieth century American notion that other countries (specifically in Latin America) are not as civilized, thus necessitating their facilitation into "the marvel of American society".
Johnny Got His Gun, however, is directly opposed to this view: the Vietman War was purposed to establish American-style democracy in Vietnam, regardless of what the people wanted. The opposition to this is the focus of the novel; if the novel's setting were in the time of Beveridge's speech, the opposition to such cultural/political imperialism would have been much more severe.

Resisting Democracy

While many may believe that democracy is a system of eternal peace and universal satisfaction, this is most certainly not the case. Resistance is necessary for a functioning democracy not to become tyrannical. If a simple majority were to decide an opinion, those in the minority could become continually oppressed. For example, if there were 100,000 people in a nation, and 60,000 of them wanted to ban yellow pants, then under a vote, yellow pants would be banned. This is not fair the the other 39,999 people (one of them has died from hepatitis B since I started writing), which constitute a rather large percentage of the nation. This is simply not fair. Those in the less advantageous position would have to fight back, rather than simply accepting their fate. This is why in America, there is not a simple majority decision for everything. It is to eliminate the total power of the majority, and so those who do not agree with them may be able to voice their opinions with equal power.

Wolfgang

Wolfson presents his argument by starting with an extensive and precise definition of marriage. This is most certainly a fair and sensible definition of marriage; one could argue that his definition is slanted, but the abstract concept of marriage is the basis of his argument, so he defines it as he sees it. This (possibly) gives the reader a warrant—that what he gives are the actual parameters for marriage—from which Wolfson will state his claims from. The very title of his piece is What is Marriage, so this first part is obviously the most important part of this excerpt. He fully explains the concept, even going as far as to distinguish it from similar concepts (such as love) and distance it from common misconceptions and stereotypes. Without clearly defining marriage, his entire argument would be useless. Towards the end, he gives numerous examples of loving couples that cannot become legally wed, and refers back to his original warrant many times. Reflecting on his legal expertise, Wolfson uses Safely v. Turner as the legal precedent under which he argues that denying marriage between homosexuals is completely absurd, both morally and legally. Wolfson has efficiently woven his rhetoric by using the threads of logic and emotion, and has visibly imprinted it with his legal credibility.

Wage Gap

A gender-related issue that I think is very important is the large wage gap between men and women. While it seems like a non-issue, this problem is very real: as of 2004, women earned just 76.5% of what men earned! This problem is not new: it has been going on for a very long time. While some may argue that "women don't work as hard" or flock to "women's jobs", consider this: according to studies, female scientists have to be twice as accomplished as male scientists in order to receive the credit. Still, some assert that the economic risk of a woman taking maternity leave is a good enough reason to pay them less. I would agree with this statement, except for the fact that this is a (rather sexist) assumption on the part of the employer. Another interesting aspect of the wage gap is the amount married people (regardless of gender) make versus unmarried. (Unmarried women earn 94.2% of what men earn.) One thing that I think these studies need to do in order to improve their credibility (as well as their accuracy) is to take into account the occupations, hours, experience and skill levels, and even the relative size/age of the organization for which they work. Taking these factors in account would present a much more realistic picture of the situation, rather than some of these possibly inflated statistics. I do believe, however, that even if the situation has indeed been hyperbolated, the wage gap is a significant problem that needs to be addressed in the near future, if not now.

Santorum