Memorable Topic from Q1

One topic that I truly found interesting was the topic of 'Victimless Crimes.' I had never considered gambling, scalping tickets, pornography, or sex acts, among other things, to be real crimes worth imprisoning others for until I watched the recorded television special that was played in class. I enjoyed listening to the two arguments: one being that people should be able to do what they choose to do as long as they are not directly affecting anyone else-a lot of these acts are committed in the privacy of one's own home!-and the other being that these acts are immoral, whether they are hurting anyone else or not. Under the first amendment shouldn't one be able to "mess up" his or her own life? And who is the government to decide what is moral or immoral for any one person? This are questions that were brought to my attention, and they truly made me think. I understand how a few victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug use, are borderline, but many others that are extremely harmless are still characterized in this 'immoral' way. By learning about these "victimless crimes," I became better aware of where I stand on the issue-I do not believe many of these acts, especially sex acts, should be regulated when everyone thinks and feels differently regarding his or her own morals. I also became aware of the fact that this struggle for rights given to us under the first amendment even existed-that there are people out there who fight the battle every day because they cannot live their life happily with the infringement on their privacy and their choices. I gained a better realization of the hardships many people endure because of these "morally-regulated" laws. I value learning this because I can teach those who are not aware so that they can become aware and do something about it if they so choose. Becoming aware and spreading the word could easily become a catalyst for change! I also now have the ability to relate it to other happenings throughout the country and to compare it to various other instances outside of our country as well. I have become a more informed citizen, and I will be better able to relate back to this topic in the future.

Inherit the Wind

In the note preceding the play, the playwrights imply that the themes of the play are timeless and universal. They understand that there is always something that gets America, or even a small portion of America, riled up. People will never agree on everything because we all have unique opinions that we are entitled to have! Under the first amendment, we are given our basic freedoms of individualism and the freedoms to express those. As in the book, there will always be a battle raging between two parties who cannot seem to reach common ground. This is not wrong, but the playwrights are trying to emphasize the inevitability of this in our society. In the book, the battle was fought over "Darwinism" and evolution. An example in today's society would be the issue of abortion. It is a constant battle that exists due to two extremely different views.
As I stated before, the abortion issue is a great example of how the themes of the book tie in today, especially since both topics are very much based on religion. In Inherit the Wind, the argument is that God created all beings. The other side of the argument states that humans and all beings evolved over time. When applied to abortion, the religious side emphasizes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The other side believes that a woman has the right to decide what she is going to do with her body.
People are never going to agree on everything, which is why the Scopes trials had to happen and why Roe vs Wade occurred. There are plenty of other examples of opposition in today's society.
It's a fact of life!

Promoting Democracy Abroad

After reading "Should Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?" I agree with the "yes" argument. First of all, the "yes" argument is a very strong argument that states that those countries that democratize experience a sharp increase in economic growth. For example, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Mexico, Senegal, Mozambique, and other countries, all of which switched over to democratic ways, grew more rapidly than Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, all countries with autocratic governments. In addition, Siegle makes the argument that while autocratic countries with incomes below $2,000 averaged 79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births during the '90s, democratizers in the same income category and time frame typically experienced only 62 infant deaths. Also to be noted, democratizing states that strive to establish institutions of shared power tend to develop more rapidly. Those countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Senegal, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, etc. that have established stronger methods protecting against the arbitrary use of power have realized more economic growth than other democratizers whose restraints on political monopolization have been weak. Democratic countries, he argues, also present a good example of the benefits of democracy to those countries who do not currently govern that way. I believe that these examples provide strong support and evidence that democracy anywhere is responsible for increased prosperity and advancement. This can be made evident simply be comparing and contrasting countries with a strong democratic system to those that have a poor democratic system or none at all. Who can argue with infant mortality rates and economic stability?

In reading the "no" argument, I picked up on some weak points in the text. The "no" argument, first of all, does not even really disagree with the "yes" argument-it simply disagreed in the way the spread of democracy abroad was being carried out. What kind of an argument is that? :) This in itself makes for a poor stance (the fact that the author is not supporting the completely opposite point of view). She argues that the spread of democracy abroad is costing us too much money and that our president is not carrying his duties out in the correct way, but she does not really give much of an example. She does speak of how some say that they doubt President Bush really wanted to establish democracy in Iraq in the first place, but she does not back up her argument by giving examples of who, when, why, etc. This is all simply heresay without substantial evidence. Her circumlocution is not beneficial or complementary to her argument whatsoever-it just makes her seem as if she didn't do her "research!"

Justification of Putting Suspected Terrorists Through Torture

After reading "Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress," I sided with the "no" stance. I strongly believe that because the U.S. government allowed for the beating of, many times innocent, people who were suspected terrorists, we were given a bad reputation. Many other countries who had looked up to us previously, now look down upon us as no better than the actual terrorists themselves. This could harm our country in the sense that those who took our side before on very large matters, have left us on our own after this "rendition" sort of uprising. In addition, the beating and torture of people for information teaches our children the wrong things, and it sets up very low standards for our citizens. We can no longer say that we are a morally-correct country, and there is definitely not as much to be proud of if we are defined for our unethical and inhumane treatment of our own race! I do not agree with the "no" argument at all because the author stresses that torturing others for information is essential to protecting our citizens from harm. He also states that we are sending a positive example in standing up for the freedoms and protection of our country. Yes, I agree that our citizens should be kept out of harm's way, but as the "no" argument mentions, how many people actually have information to give us? And how many times have these pressure tactics worked? I will say that I don't believe they are effective at all! We just look idiotic. In conclusion, the "no" argument is a much stronger argument, and I argue with that argument one-hundred percent.

Rendition

The movie Rendition truly brings to light the issue of illegally obtaining "intelligence," and it can very easily be connected to the theme of "nature versus nurture." After 9/11, our country became a product of society's fear-constantly labeling anyone who looked foreign as a terrorist. For example, in the movie the mayor(?) criticized Alan's wish to rescue Anwar from the unfair treatment that he was suffering, and he said that he did not wish to be called a "Bin Laden lover." This rendition program, that was electrocuting, beating up, and stripping Anwar naked, seems to make those who are anti-terrorist feel okay, but the fact is this: many of those innocent people had no information yet were tortured anyways. This nurture argument that is forming is clearly illustrated in the way that one man would torture a prisoner just because another man "found him" to be guilty. There was no evidence!
In addition, Khalid's actions were all based upon his environment. Because his brother had died as a result of this rendition program and its leaders, and because Omar, Khalid's friend, had been captured and beaten as well, Khalid set off the bomb that killed so many. This was all to prove a point. He would never have done that if it hadn't been for the past unfair treatment and torture of those he loved.
Another great example of the "nurture" argument appears when Alan gives up Anwar's wife's "case." Due to the pressure from his job and society to keep quiet about the details of the rendition program, he stops helping out a friend!
There are obviously many more examples throughout the movie that reinforce the "nurture" argument as well.
At the end of Rendition, everything comes together to make a very big impact on the viewer and to prove the point of the whole movie. Post 9/11 society corrupted the minds of those who wished for power, and they went about their "security measures" in such a way that many innocent people were humiliated and/or killed. Those affected by the killings and such lashed out in other ways to try to combat rendition. These attempts to stop or impede rendition usually only caused more serious problems. The cycles formed because of rendition ultimately destroyed many different communities and societies. And this all started because of society's impact on "a" human being.

3:10 to Yuma

The movie 3:10 to Yuma definitely has some kind of connection to the "nature versus nurture" theme. In my opinion, Ben Wade's character is strongly representative of the "nurture argument." He was probably not initially a killer, a cheater, or a coldhearted person, but because of the people and events that surrounded him, he succumbed in order to fit in and in order to survive. His bad behavior may also be a result of his mom abandoning him when he was younger. When Ben Wade, at the beginning of the movie, states, "I hate Pinkertons," he seems to be going along with what his environment is reinforcing. One example of Wade's behavior is showcased when he kills Byron. It is obvious that Wade lives defensively, and at one point in the movie he even speaks of how good deeds are contagious. And for that reason, he stays away from the good deeds. Although Wade and his comrades show their extremely societal-based behaviors throughout the entirety of the movie, the environment, once again, molds Wade's character at the end-this time in a positive way. After he was "escorted" (haha) to the train station and after William watched his father get shot by Charlie Prince, Wade was deeply affected. Because of this environmental change, Wade shot his former friend, Charlie Prince, and rather than escaping, rightfully locked himself behind bars on the 3:10 train to Yuma.

"Dead Teen Walking"

"Dead Teen Walking" is very similar to White Fang in that they both discuss society's influence on events, people, and reality in general (the "molding" concept). In "Dead Teen Walking," the unfair imposition of the death penalty on minorities and on others who are undeserving of it is discussed. It tells the story of one boy in particular who had a bad childhood and who made poor decisions. This very much reminds me of White Fang in that both the boy in the article and White Fang had very rough childhoods. Despite this fact, those who made up a part of their environment did not care or take that into account when questioning their bad behavior. It seems that these kinds of things (past experiences, etc.) are never taken into account. In White Fang, it appears as if his past was not taken into account until he came upon Scott, a man who truly looked at how the past had molded White Fang's character.
I do not believe that teens should be put on death row at all! As I discussed above, those teens' pasts are not taken into account when making these decisions. Maybe if each case was dealt with individually, then the legal process involved with youth punishment would be more fair. I also did not like the part of the article that states that valuable evidence that could be used to prove a minority innocent is often passed up or ignored. This is very discriminatory! Everyone should have the right to a fair trial. In addition, I do not agree with the fact that these youth trials are put off until the youth are of age (this makes age appear to be an uncontroversial issue). Who knows how many innocent people have died by means of capital punishment? I believe that youth should be given a chance to prove themselves. Why should they not be allowed to prove themselves? This would be much better than learning one's lesson by dying!
Reading White Fang impacted my viewpoint only in that I noticed the same "nurture" stance in which I had agreed with (and still agree with). Both pieces definitely had a lot in common!