Chrummboew

My one problem with Trumbo's assertion in that soldiers can only fight for a cause that is their own and not an ideal is the lack of unity within an army if all the things the soldiers are fighting for are separate. The purpose of fighting for an ideal, or at least to the higher-ups in an army, is to unite all the soldiers behind this idea. This makes these soldiers a much more cohesive unit with more drive to fight, eventually making the whole army more powerful. However, where Trumbo is right is that some people will not believe in the ideal in the first place, and this is where the situation gets tricky. Creating a draft, although sometimes necessary, causes problems in the way of camaraderie and the inner drive of soldiers, so such a practice should be avoided until circumstances call for its definite necessity.

I can't think of a good phonetic scramble for this one. I'm all worn out.

This is just a personal observation, and it relates to my personality as a reader and probably nobody else's, but I find the organization of the book to be a major pain. Once I understood that Joe was in bandages from head to foot, or lack thereof, I wanted to find out more about Joe's condition! Would he be all right? What permanent damage will he suffer? (I now know the answer to that question is a bunch) But instead, I read a bunch of flashbacks to Joe's past. His friends, his family, his enemies, and even people he barely knew intertwine in his thoughts throughout the novel, and it really bothers me because I find this part irrelevant to the knowledge I want to obtain. I don't care what message is trying to be made through these memories, but the only message I wanted to receive from the book is what happened to Joe. I know Dalton Trumbo is a greater writer than I could ever hope to be yadda yadda yadda but that aspect of the book, at least for me, was a major nuisance.

Jhahknee gaht hihss Ghuhnn

The general themes of "The March of the Flags" by Albert Beveridge and "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo are not entirely related, but there is one idea from both pieces of fighting on foreign soil for "liberty and civilization." The main goal behind America's entry into the First World War was to preserve said liberty in Europe, and the entries into both wars came about as the result of attacks on American ships, thus creating a threat to American civilization. However, Beveridge's speech takes a more positive optimistic approach to such action, while Joe Bonham takes a cynical approach to such ideals, which is perfectly reasonable seeing as he no longer had a face, arms, or legs due to the preservation of "liberty and civilization."

Uhmehrrikuh Da Byootiphull

The main connection between "America the Beautiful" and "Johnny Got His Gun" is the emphasis on a lack of understanding of Americans about why they fight in the wars each writing is related to: The former for the Iraq war and the latter for World War I. As he lies deaf, blind, dumb, and limbless in his hospital bed, Joe Bonham wonders why what happened to him was needed; why did he have to go fight. "America the Beautiful" Also questions the level of understanding of Americans of the current American war and discusses how important this is to a secure, safe and united population. Both pieces are clearly antiwar in that they question whether or not there really is any way to understand why wars are being though almost no matter what the situation is.

Reezistinss n Duhmahkruhsee

Of all the pieces of this country that keep the federal government in check, the resistance of the people is the most important, because without the resistance of individuals and groups against the government, then the government has no limits to what it can do. The main part of resistance in democracy is the voting process itself. Every citizen over 18 can resist a tyrannical maniacal leader by voting them out of office in an election and their is nothing said leader can do about this. This forces the congressmen and individuals with executive power to "act appropriately" and conduct themselves in a manner representative of the people, or at least most of the time. Without this voting privilege, the only other form of resistance is protest, and this is something the government could control with violent repression if there is no chance to vote out anyone. That is obviously an extreme case, but my point is that without the vote, America would be a dictatorial monarchy whose well-being totally depends on the competency of one permanent ruler.

Mohr Jenndurr

I don't know how incredibly recent this is, but one issue regarding sexuality this topic reminded me of was the American Idol season in which Adam Lambert was defeated by Kris Allen in the season finale. I am in no way shape or form a dedicated "Idol" fan, but I do remember there being a particular uproar over the fact that Lambert was supposedly not chosen as American Idol because he was gay. I know very little beyond this about the situation, but I think it can be taken two ways. The first would be that it's pretty sad how our society has sunk quite low in judging a person not by the quality of their singing and performing abilities, but by their sexuality. The second would be that it's pretty sad how our society has sunk quite low in creating the "sexuality card" to go along with the race card. The boy who cried racism can now also be the boy who cried sexualityism (help on that word anybody?) and this becomes incredibly problematic, as it becomes harder and harder to fire certain segments of the population because of accusations of bigotry. Do I have any idea which is true? Absolutely not. I'm no judge of singing ability, so whether or not Lambert was more talented than Allen is a question I can't answer. But the real question coming out of this is what direction has our society gone from this and what can we do about it.

Mehrridge #5

Wolfson uses the Turner v. Safley case to tie to the idea that banning same sex marriage is ridiculous because they cannot get married while the hardest of murderers in our federal justice system are allowed to be married. This is a great strategy because it calls out the same sex marriage proponents as demonizing homosexuals as a lower class of citizen than mass murderers. With homosexuals being the last segment of the population to be denied the right to marry, Wolfson's point makes perfect sense in the context with the rest of his piece. Without Wolfson's connections being made in this piece, there would be no crystal clear connection from Turner v. Safley, but after reading the piece the connection is very clear.