Arguably the most important “power” that these writers attributed to the individual was the individual’s right to power over their own beings. The ability to self-determine one’s destiny was not only necessary to the underpinnings of enlightenment, but it was also necessary to advance society as a whole. By allowing individuals to have power over their individual being, they became their own masters: no longer subjected by the whims of a larger society. As an illustration of these principles, once released from the tenets of religion, Benjamin Franklin “conceiv’d the bold and arduous Project of arriving at moral Perfection” (364). By believing in the power of the self and the equality of men he accomplished this without requiring a higher moral authority , Franklin defined his own moral perfection and strove to achieve it. The power the individual has over the self is absolute, but as Poe warns, this can be used for ill: in Poe’s tale of “The Tell-Tale Heart,” his protagonist envisions the world around him through the filter of his own demented mind. The conflicts in the character’s internal self become so profuse that he projects them externally and creates an old man whose eye haunts him, and he is eventually undone when he fails to recognize the beatings of his own heart. This absolute power is both the greatest curse and privilege of the Enlightenment and Romantic views of the self, so rather than leaving this power unchecked, they emphasized the power of Nature as both the antithesis to the self and the guide of the self.

Even though the release from mortal authority and the servitude of religion was central to the Enlightenment, they did not banish the Deities. Instead they either personified deities as part of the natural world which allowed the individual the opportunity to be “part or particle of God” (Emerson, 657) or defined the deities as separate from the world and as a creator but not a participatory member of the universe. Franklin was one of the original Deisitic writers in American Literature, and believed in the separation of religion from God because of the oppressive and meddlesome nature of churches which mixed their theology “with other Articles which without any tendency to inspire, promote or confirm Morality, serv’d principally to divide us & make us unfriendly to one another” (Franklin, 363). As Romantic writing developed it moved the Enlightened Deity from the role of creator into the natural world by blending the deity into Nature and science. This natural view of God continued the deistic way of thinking, and removed much of the remaining power of the organized churches allowing people to find and define their own personal church, and while some created cathedrals out of mountains and trees, others made theirs out of numbers, facts and figures creating the first conflicts between the mystical nature and the exacting sciences.

While the individual had the power to determine their own personal beliefs, some found that they were still oppressed by things they could not control: science became increasingly important, and to some, this was as oppressive as the monarchs and gods of the past. Their objection was that in becoming the absolute authority, science created a monochromatic image of the world which stifled the individual’s ability to perceive the world around him for what he believed it was; however, others quickly realized that science allowed them to open their eyes and see the world both as it was and how it could be. Poe and Thoreau, in a clash between bright and dark romanticism, viewed science differently with the more middle-of-the-road approach being attributed to to the bright romantics. In Poe’s “Sonnet — to Science” he attacks the mundane aspects of science and refers to it as a “Vulture! whose wings are dull realities” (1223), but Thoreau, in his journals, embraces science, but believes that one can only truly appreciate something when one “forget[s] all [their] learning and get[s] rid of what is called knowledge”. Poe believes that the science accosts his creativity and stifles his ability to be an individual and exercise his hard-won individualism, but Thoreau is capable of independently appreciating nature even if his opinions are invalidated by science because he believes that his power over his own perceptions is absolute, so balancing the science with the mystery of Nature and the joy of poetic expression is not difficult him or other “bright” romantics. These two different views of science are brought about by the way the writers treat science: Poe personified science and held it blamable rather than as a tool, but Thoreau treats science as a tool and because of this, he is able to cast it aside when it is unnecessary while Poe’s creations and imaginings are constantly surrounded, attacked and restrained by a personified science which replaces the monarchs and gods. For writers of similar beliefs to Poe, this restriction by science was contrary to the ideals of Romanticism, and created a stumbling block that hemmed in the powers of the individual.

The only restrictions on the individual, other than the perception of a restrictive science and or those self-imposed, were the restrictions of society itself. These societal restrictions are not the same as the restrictions of a Monarch, but are the attempts of society to control the individual and harness their powers for the good of society itself. To the Romantics, this acceptance of societal pressures was a sort of voluntary defeat which according to some, like Thoreau, was necessary because not all were capable of fully controlling their own lives (820). Thoreau believed that most people spent their lives “sleeping” only using their minds for menial pursuits and living lives “of quiet desperation” (813). However, while Thoreau allowed for control of these sleepers, he believed that should a man wish to remove themselves from the societal order, they should be allowed to: regardless of its effects on the society itself. Thus, the individual is simultaneously an integral component of society, but also transcends such mean concerns when it is necessary for the individual to exercise their powers of reason, imagination, logic and creation.

The writers of the the Enlightenment and Romantic period defined the individual as the reasoning and logical self which interacts with the larger external world, and the powers they attributed to their creation were immense, but they tempered the powers of the individual with the power and mystery of nature. This individualistic view of the self replaced the mean collectivism of European society and formed the foundation of modern perceptions of the individual.

Bookmark

(Emphasis added to some lines.)

SOME IMPORTANT DO’S AND DON’TS

Keep away from mosques.

Smoke or spit somewhere else—never in front of a mosque.

If you come near a mosque, keep moving (away) and don’t loiter.

Keep silent when the Moslems are praying (which they do five times a day) and don’t stare.

Discuss something else—NEVER religion or politics or women—with Moslems.

Remember the fear of the “evil eye.” Don’t stare at anyone. Don’t point your camera in anyone’s face.

Avoid offering opinions on internal politics.

Shake hands with the Iraqi; otherwise don’t touch them or slap them on the back.

Remember that the Iraqi are a very modest people and avoid any exposure of the body in their presence.

Keep out of the sun whenever you can. When you can’t, keep your head and neck covered.

Start eating only after your host has begun.

Eat with your right hand—never with your left, even if you are a southpaw.

Always tear bread with your fingers—never cut it.

Bread to the Moslems is holy. Don’t throw scraps of it about or let it fall on the ground.

In the city eat only part of the first course. There may be more coming.

In the country leave some food in the bowl—what you leave goes to the women and children.

Don’t offer Moslems food containing pork, bacon, or lard, or cooked in pork products. All such food is religiously “unclean” to them.

Don’t eat pork or pork products in front of Moslems.

Be pleasant if Moslems refuse to eat meat you offer.

Don’t offer Moslems alcoholic drinks. Drink liquor somewhere else—never in the presence of Moslems.

Knock before entering a private house. If a woman answers, wait until she has had time to retire.

Always respect the Moslem women. Don’t stare at them. Don’t smile at them. Don’t talk to them or follow them. If you do any of these things, it means trouble for you and your unit.

In a house or tent, follow the rule of your host. If he takes off his shoes on entering, do the same.

If you are required to sit on the floor in an Iraqi house or tent, cross your legs while doing so.

When visiting, don’t overstay your welcome. The third glass of tea or coffee is the signal to leave unless you are quartered there.

If you should see grown men walking hand in hand, ignore it. They are not “queer.”

Be kind and considerate to servants. The Iraqis consider all people equals.

Avoid any expression of race prejudice. The people draw very little color line.

Talk Arabic if you can to the people. No matter how badly you do it, they will like it.

Shake hands on meeting and leaving.

On meeting an Iraqi, be sure to inquire after his health.

If you wish to give someone a present, make it sweets or cigarettes.

If you are stationed in the country, it is a good idea to take sweets and cigarettes with you when you visit an Iraqi’s home.

Show respect toward all older persons. If serving food, the eldest person should be served first.

Be polite. Good manners are important to the Iraqis. Be hospitable.

Bargain on prices. Don’t let shopkeepers or merchants overcharge you; but be polite.

Be generous with your cigarettes.

Above all, use common sense on all occasions. And remember that every American soldier is an unofficial ambassador of good will.

Hat tip

If the American government had remembered its past policies, there would a few less problems in Iraq today.

Bookmark

This speech was made directly to the people, and although it was made in support of Goldwater, it seems to be a foundation of Reagan’s political career. Reagan went beyond the basic party line that the democrat’s were ruining America, and picked at every fault in the democrat’s plans, he blasted away at all of the programs of the “Great Society”, exposed the gross inaccuracies in the planning and execution of existing programs. He then portrayed Goldwater as a kind and caring individual, who would do anything to help someone in trouble.

Reagan’s portrayal of Goldwater seems to be made to soften the Goldwater image and to help overcome the fears Americans had of the time. Goldwater’s hard conservative stance made him seem like someone who would drop a bomb at the slightest provocation, but Reagan painted a picture of someone who not only wouldn’t drop the bomb in an instance but someone who wouldn’t drop the bomb period. Although the speech only mentions Goldwater a few times and only several sentences talking directly about him, thus making the speech less of a tool to get Goldwater elected but more of a way to get people to start thinking of Republican ideals, while seeing what was wrong with the Democratic party.

Reagan goes into some detail of the programs of the “Great Society” and exposing them for the badly run, money-wasting organizations that they were. He continues drawing many likenesses of the administrations views to Marxism; he gives examples of these with the farmers who were losing their land, and a story of a woman getting a divorce so she could receive more welfare. This has the effect of shocking the listener, and creating a feeling of general disgust as parallels could be drawn with other issues of the day, issues such as the increasing divorce rates, the bankruptcy of farmers, rising cost of basic items.

But the speech failed to get Goldwater elected, because of public perception of Goldwater, and the idea that the “Great Society” actually was working well. Even though the speech failed it did stay in people’s minds as it became increasingly obvious that the “Great Society” had failed, just like the Final Frontier, the Fair deal before it.

Even forty years later this speech is as powerful and up-to-date as when it was first written, the same issues, the same party lines, the only change is the players. Even though this speech was made in ’64 seventeen years before Reagan was elected, this speech was one of the many things that helped him to be elected.

Bookmark

The letter is directed to President Kennedy personally and places all the blame for the situation on Kennedy entirely. Khrushchev paints a picture of an evil America threatening the peaceful communist countries of the world and in a very propagandist maneuver describes communists as hard-working peaceful peasant farmers who want nothing more than pleasant diplomatic relations with their neighbors.

Khrushchev claims that the missiles the Russians sold to Cuba were humanitarian aid and sold to them as a way to defend themselves against the American threat the Cubans were forced to live with daily. Although Khrushchev claims the missiles were humanitarian aid they were in fact a way for him to balance out the American missiles in turkey and to position himself for a Public relations victory that would help to take the pressure off of his failed home economic strategy.

This letter inferred that the ending of the crisis would occur with a promise from Kennedy to not use military force against Cuba, however in his second letter he also demanded the removal of all American missiles from military bases in Turkey. It seems that Khrushchev used his first letter to privately tease the American government with the idea of an easy end, but forced his position with a public demand of a much harder bargain in the end. Kennedy responded with a similar smaller public agreement to not invade Cuba but a larger private deal to remove (or consider removing) the missiles the Americans had in Turkey.

The letter also shows how little Castro actually had to do with the Cuban missile crisis all the deals were worked out by America and Russia without concern for Cuban feelings. Future movies and books such as “Thirteen Days” also minimizes Cuba’s role in the entire situation to that of a pawn. Although this may very well be the correct interpretation of events.

The letters did succeed in helping to end the crisis but even though both sides got what they wanted neither side felt they had won anything. Even though the Cuban missile crises publicly lasted thirteen days according to some documents, the crisis started as far back as late 1959 and ended early in 1963.

Bookmark

Maya’s rape set the stage for the rest of her life. It starts off for Maya as just searching for affection and she begins to look at Mr. Freeman as a father figure, however Freeman takes advantage of this and after two smaller incidents rapes her. Freeman not only rapes her but rather than being a so-called crime of passion plans it specifically. When Maya goes to leave with her brother Freeman tells her to get some milk knowing that she will return with no one else around. Maya as strange it may seem was rather lucky, the incident was not as horrible as some and left her with minor mental scarring. However this does not negate the actions of Freeman, he took advantage of Maya and suffered the ultimate price for it. Maya was right to lie on the witness stand, had she confessed (note the word used) she would have been blamed for the rape. In modern times many excuses like “she was promiscuous” referring to a three year old and many other pathetic examples exist where child molesters get reduced sentences because the child is judged to share responsibility, and since human nature rarely changes one can assume it would have happened then too.

Maya’s descent into melancholy caused by her lying on the witness stand and the resulting death it caused only completely ended when she ran away from home and lived at the junkyard for a time. After being accepted into the group she was finally able to “find herself” and gained self-esteem and confidence in herself and her abilities. The transformation that started at the junkyard finally finished after becoming a mother Maya shows the life changing possibilities that the sudden responsibility of another life in your hands can bring. However even in this revelation she still is confused about the role of parent-child considering it more about ownership that parenting. However one is too assume this feeling soon subsides as Maya spends more time as a mother.

The incident with the “powhitetrash” hints at the mindset of the maturer and wiser blacks in the south, “living with your head in the tiger’s mouth” as Ralph Edison puts it. Momma’s refusal to acknowledge the girls antics, which are meant to dehumanize and abuse her, allows her to “beat” them at their own game and Momma’s steadfast respect allows her to keep her dignity, as she has not been “brought down” to their level.

Racism the book shows is not a one or a two way street, it is not just white versus black, black versus white. Racism is anyone who judges someone on the basis of skin color or descent. The idea that racism is mainly whites against other races is pervasive, however all groups tend to be racist for some reason or another. Culturally native Japanese tend to be the most racist (your either Japanese or your not) but this in and of itself is a racist idea. Programs like Affirmative action are also extremely racist, rather than removing racism as they intend to do they just hide it just below the surface. So rather than a business owner hiring all whites and making it obvious to his customers he is racist he ends up hiring his required (random numbers not actual statistics) seventy percent white and thirty percent minorities grudgingly. Although this may tend to be preferable to the people that actually get those jobs it is nearly as demeaning to tell someone that they got the job because they are not part of the “majority” as it is to say they can’t get the job for the same reason. Racism that tells people that they are dumb because of their race is the exact same as saying that they need extra help and can’t get what they need on their own because of their race.

Bookmark

Many times throughout history the American ideal of free speech has been curtailed and ideas were stopped for being too dangerous or controversial. The “red scare” is once such incident, the repercussions of the red scare and the resulting McCarthyism has reverberated throughout American culture for nearly a century. Estrich says that the constitution does allow for some leeway in the adoption of free speech. Although not apparent on the surface but the red scare actually helped American society in some ways. The resulting creation of taboos against anything communist, allowed American democracy to flourish even further. Because communism by nature abhors free speech that does not agree with it, the resulting wave of anti-communism ensured that America would have free speech for many years to come.

Estrich warns against the resulting anti-muslim/anti-arab feelings that began to surface within a short time of massacre that occurred in the fall of 2001. Although unfortunately it is a common occurrence throughout history, it is easier to point your finger at the whole rather than the one. Yet at the same time, it is a required exercise in national security, assuming for a moment that all those responsible for the massacre are of the same race and religion, it would be prudent to look into the same groups for information. Estrich warns, “We are faced with real threats”[we must] meet those threats without” undermining the freedom and liberty that are the source of our power.”

In an ideal world there would be no need to look at our own citizens to find the guilty parties, but the world is far from ideal. As history has shown us – with events such as the mass firing of experts on Asia that took place after china became communist (which lead to the Korean and Vietnam war) ” the world is not ideal and when the government needs scapegoats it is easiest to blame its own people. Yet in this case it is not just a scapegoat the government is looking for, some of our own citizens helped to create the destruction.

The right to free speech is often defined also as the right to free action, although the exact wording of the constitution does not necessarily allow for this interpretation. Estrich uses the following example “[those who] did such things as print brochures and newsletters [during World War One] encouraging resistance to the draft [were prosecuted.]” The government has historically upheld the ideals of free speech, but when speech turns to action the government has been less than kind. During the 1960′s the National Guard was used to break up civil rights protests, in the 1920′s the government arrested communist supporters who handed out pamphlets, during the civil war President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and countless other examples are available going back the Declaration of Independence. This has set up a disturbing precedent throughout history, the free speech we treasure so is still limited in some ways, far less than in other countries but it is still limited.

Which in turn brings up several questions, how much free speech is necessary to uphold the constitutional ideals? Or who gets to draw the line? These questions have had a lot of debate over the past 230 years. Clay Jenkinson says, “Ideas are sometimes dangerous, but not as dangerous as the government that would restrain them.” But fierce debate occurs when these questions are brought up to a group; the conflicting opinions reflect the various opinions the government has had over the years. Although currently the government can stop free speech it deems will incur imminent lawless action, it is hard to prove and harder to enact.

Susan Estrich’s editorials The Thin, Thin Line Between Safe and Free although, not the most thought provoking article ever written, does bring up the questions in a manner that is important to the modern times and creates a fertile ground from which debates about the issues of the past and how they are affecting us in modern times can develop.

Bookmark

The freedom of speech is an important value to America’s continued life as a democratic republic, the founding fathers themselves found it to be important enough to make it the very first of our God given undeniable rights as Americans. But forcing a person to speak is just as bad is forcing him not to speak, to require an organization to give time to issues or political views it does not agree with, takes a news organization and turns it into an information agency, nothing but a library of currant events. Of course one could argue that the media has an obligation to the people, to give them all the facts, the truth as it were. However, the truth is not yes or no, right or wrong, black or white, it is a multi faceted prism, light enters and comes out the other side with a rainbow of colors, likewise Truth goes into the prism of the human consciousness and when it emerges from the other side it is colored with the persons perspectives. If the government begins to dictate what is or is not balanced the government will also begin to dictate what is or is not Truth. In the early part of the 20th Century Justice Holmes wrote, “the best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market [not because a single entity considers it false.]” The Truth is always colored by perception and the only way ideas can freely compete in the marketplace is for them to float unhindered throughout the marketplace.

Governmental control of media organizations should be limited to promoting free speech rather than hindering it. This includes laws that restrict monopolies by single media organizations, but not laws that require balanced news reports. The government currently has laws on the amount of the American market any single news organizations can broadcast to. These laws are needed to prevent single entities from becoming so prolific in the never-ending quest for profits that they hinder the spread of new ideas, creating in essence a sand trap in the market place of ideas. Even though the supporters of the Fairness Doctrine believe that the fairness doctrine would help to expand the viewpoints and information available, if the government was allowed to direct what the media could say, it would have the effect of a single media organization that becomes too prolific. Either scenario would cause the marketplace of ideas to become so watered down with the same repetitive thoughts and would enable it to be eventually turned into a sort of propaganda machine, all spouting the same information over and over and over.

Does the restriction on the media truly violate the first amendment? According to some yes, according to others no, a simple answer doles not exists. According to Farah the answer is yes, he says “The [fairness doctrine]“had exactly the opposite effect”it had very negative unintended consequences.” The consequences he continues to say were the number of ideas that

Bookmark