The effect of a decision

The documentary The Fog of War was incredibly interesting to me. I had seen it before, but this time I really thought about what Robert McNamara was saying and the points he was trying to convey. I even found myself reflecting on the film at the dinner table with some of my family. I thought it was great to see and hear a man's point of view who was on the inside of it all, and wasn't just a witness to history. He created history. I came out of the class period with more knowledge than I did coming into it.

One of the lessons McNamara taught me is the importance of decisions. He emphasized the significance of thinking decisions through before acting on them. I make decisions for my own well being and my family, but he had to make decisions for himself along with the rest of the United States. Every time he decided on something, the nation would either be helped by the judgement or harmed by his mistake. He believes that there were times he did make the right call, and then there were times he didn't. Sometimes he would have to make quick decisions out of fear or efficiency, and in those seconds, he may have choose the wrong path. In deciding quickly, he wasn't always able to get the whole story. If he had the whole story, there might not have been bombs dropped or chemicals sprayed. A lot of people disagree with the choices McNamara made, and view them as severe mistakes. Though at the same time, some of his decisions had to be done. They may not have been the most moral or humane thing to do, but at the time there might not have been another option. In the novel, The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien states that, "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done" (68). In war, the lines are gray, and the decisions don't follow the usual guideline. There doesn't seem to be any signs of morality when it comes to war. McNamara had to make the hard decision for the country. He did what he believed was best for the nation, and then would take the blame for it, If he hadn't made some of those hard decisions, we never would have been able to attain some of the amazing things we did.

The choices I make everyday may not be near as drastic or costly, but they have an effect on myself and the people around me. I need to value the thought process, and make sure I am being careful and considerate every time I agree to something. Through this documentary I now understand that one decision can change an entire nations lives, and that sometimes you need to something considered bad or even evil, in order to do something good or achieve something great.

The game of war

My younger cousins came over this past week, and decided to play war on my neighbors playset. They used sticks as swords and guns. They hid behind trees and created forts. They even split themselves up into different countries. It was one big game, that they ended up playing for the entire afternoon. They were muddy and tired once they came back inside, and decided they needed a break from war for dinner. War has become something that kids can take lightly and treat as something that is fun and enjoyable to play. Then as soon as they need a break, they can come home and relax. They can make their own rules for the situation.

Even stores are catching onto the war infatuation. There are so many war video games that are sold in stores now. There are tons of action figures and play mobiles of model tanks and guns. I was looking at Target, and I found shelves of war and battle Lego's. We have turned our view on war to be something it isn't. Young kids are getting the wrong idea about it, and thinking it is much better and easier than it really is.

War is so brutal and incredibly dangerous, but for some reason, children have come to look at war as though it is a game, and something to play with their best friends. It shows how strong and tough they are. It makes young children think that they can dodge any bullet that comes their way. Kids get a false idea of what war really is. They don't fully understand the dangers and horrible possibilities that come with it. Then when the draft comes along, they think they are signing up for a temporary game, but don't realize they are potentially signing over their lives. They become a part of something and may not be ready for what they are getting involved in.

War can repeat itself

Even though the Vietnam War was decades ago, its affect on the United States hasn't gone away. We still remember all the pain and struggle the war brought. The Vietnam War was very controversial, and is the only war we have ever lost as a nation thus far. There was so much drama and debate over the war, it caused riots and protests all over the nation. After so much trauma, you would think the United States would avoid finding itself amidst anything like it again, but as the saying goes, history always repeats itself. In this case, history seems to be repeating itself with the war we are experiencing today in Iraq. Many people believe we should have never gone overseas to fight. We have had troops there for some time now, and we have not found any weapons of mass destruction. The main reason we went to war was to find and destroy any weapons. Now that we realize there aren't any, the whole war is beginning to seem even more pointless for the already disproving citizens. The same went for Vietnam in that after so many young men lost their lives, and so much national energy was put in, we lost the war. We came out of it feeling very much unsuccessful.

I came across an article in the New York Times that compared the two wars. It was an article from 2007 that summarized Senator Ted Kennedy's speech at the National Press Club. Even though this article is a couple years old, the ideas still remain the same, and we still have soldiers in Iraq. One of the opening lines was what really caught my eye. Kennedy said that the Iraq War was "George Bush's Vietnam." After years in war, Bush made the decision to send addtional tens of thousands of soldiers to Iraq. Kennedy went on to argue that the majority were against the war, and even more were against sending more troops. Just the same, the majority of people today are still against sending more troops, and continuing a war. Kennedy then states that people should have greater voices in terms of this matter. The citizens should aid in the decisions concerning war and additional troops. During the Vietnam War, people were trying to find a say. In this speech, Kennedy tried to offer an outlet for citizen's voices.

The new member of the White House

As I turned on my television this morning, and the morning before, I was surprised by the face of a cute new puppy. This famous pooch of the moment is none other than Bo Obama. The President's family recently welcomed their new Portuguese water dog into the White House. At first it struck me as sad that as our nation seems to be crumbling under the pressure of the war and the economy, the news is focused on the Obama's new puppy. But then as I thought about it ,maybe it is a nice distraction from the struggles, but what does this say about the citizens of the United States?

Much of the news we hear is either light, bias, or half the story. We as viewers watch what we want to see and listen to what we want to hear. It makes sense that we would rather watch a cute puppy grazing the White House lawn as opposed to the stocks dropping or lives being lost overseas. I'm not saying that it is bad or good, but every now and then it is nice to hear or see some good news on the television or radio for a change. Yet after any piece of news is broad casted, we as a people all for some reason have to form our own opinions. We justify actions and blame results. Even with as light of a story as the Presidents new pup, people find a way to form arguments, and make a big deal out of something small. Bo, the new dog, is not from a shelter, and therefore wasn't rescued as many believed Obama would/should have done. Of course, many are now outraged over this issue, but why? Obama's daughter has allergies, and so the family pet could not be one that would upset her health. As a result of that, the Obama's dog selection was very slim. It would have been very difficult for them to have found a dog at a shelter. Even with this fact, many Americans continue to be angered by the situation. They channel all of this passion into this issue that really isn't that big of a problem. The Obama family bought a dog from a breeder instead of from a shelter. Whether we hate that or not, shouldn't we just take the story for what it is, and enjoy the smile you get when looking at the cute face of a new puppy. Should we really be arguing about it? Fighting only makes people more tired and stressed, and we could really use less of that right now. Americans should be fighting for issues that are much more important, and come together as nation to battle them. I also think we as a people need to loosen up a little bit. We are so overwhelmed by all of this stress. So, the next time I see the new puppy on the television or on the computer, I am going to appreciate its pleasantness, and hope that the Obama family is enjoying their new family member. I hope others can do the same.

Country confidence

I was watching The American Country Music Awards earlier tonight, and I came across a commercial that I thought really connected to what we have been studying in class. It was a GM commercial that explained their nine month payment protection along with other money protection plans they offer as a company.  With the economic crisis in full swing, they are offering a more secure way to buy a car. It is a smart move advertising wise because it gives people reason to buy again, and lets them know that their money is safe. The commercial also makes a good move by talking about the country as a whole first. As a viewer you don't know what the commercial is for right away. It begins with explaining the need for a country comeback, and finding a confidence to help bring us back from the economic crisis. This overall message gives people a strong sense of nationalism and hope. It lets people know that we can get through this hard time, and GM is going to help us in the process. After receiving this hope, the commercial then goes straight into the advertising for the cars. We feel better about buying a car because GM just gave us reason to believe everything will work out.

I found this commercial very interesting for two reasons. After having watched Roger and Me in class this past week, it didn't really seem that GM cared for the people and their incomes. The company cared more about itself and its own income when it laid off so many workers. Now the company is taking a completely different persona. Another thing I found interesting was that it played during the American Country Music Awards. This show is highly watched by the people who "love" America, and live in the "real" country parts of the nation. When we think country we think of the heart of America. 

I have to admit that no matter the angle, this commercial definitely pulled at my heart strings, and I think after having watched it I do believe the future will be a little bit brighter. 

Is old money really so great?

This past week in class we discussed the topic of new money vs. old money. This whole topic really interested me, especially the fact that old money looks down upon those of new money. You would think it would be the opposite. These people with old money were born rich, and didn't have to do anything for the wealth they now possess. It was simply inherited because someone before them made enough to share. Whereas new money had to work hard for what they now have. They rose above the odds and earned their way to riches. Looking at the definitions it seems obvious that the latter should be the one to praise. This whole topic emphasizes the fact that society has flaws, and old traditions are hard to break.

I decided to research a little on the topic, and I wasn't suprised to see Paris Hilton pop up on my computer first. She seems to be the young face of old money. As the great granddaughter of the Hilton Hotel Founder, she was born into money. She is an actress, model, singer, and icon. She seems to be all over the Hollywood circuit. With Paris as the covergirl, I can't help but question what is so great about old money? What separates them from the average person? Paris parties, she has been arrested, and has even served jail time. She makes mistakes just like anyone else, but I thought people of old money were the classy and dignified ones. Atleast, that is what they seem to argue when comparing themselves with new money. I think that since these young teens and even adults were born into money, they don't fully understand the reprecussions of their actions. They never have to worry about losing their jobs or hurting their chances for success. They will always have their money to fall back on. I am not saying that all people of old money act like this or feel this way. I just think that old money shouldn't consider themselves superior to new when they are far from perfect.

The sweatshop debate

After having talked about sweatshops and brutal working conditions in class this past week, I decided to do some extra reading on the topic. In class, we learned that these situations are extremely harsh and very much detrimental to the people that work in it. That is why I was very surprised to come across an article arguing the opposite.

In the article The Case for Sweatshops, David Henderson argues that these sweatshops really aren't that bad. The conditions of the factories in these third-world countries are actually much better than the agricultural jobs they would be working in otherwise. Countries like Malaysia and South Korea used to use sweatshops as primary providers, but now about forty years later, no longer rely on them. The reason being their workers now have developed individual skills and earned capital. The sweatshops aren't used in South Korea and Malaysia anymore. They weren't forced to discontinue, but instead grew better on their own. We as consumers, Henderson explains, shouldn't discourage sweatshops, but instead we should continue to buy from them, and then let them develop on their own.

Henderson goes on to even speak highly of child labor. He thinks that the sweatshops keep children out of trouble. Without the work to keep them busy and making money, they would live on the streets as prostitutes or starving for food.

Having heard one opinion about sweatshops for so long, it was hard for me to read this article and agree. I see the point that Henderson is making, and I also see the point of opposition argued by many as well. I think in terms of sweatshops, we should try to find a middle ground. The idea of sweatshops as a system that provides jobs to many should remain constant. It is the conditions that need to change. They need to become safer and cleaner. The workers need to be treated more like people.