The Degrees of Duty...

"He who joyfully marches in rank & file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him a spinal cord would suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love ~ of ~ country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable & ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." ~ Albert Einstein ~

He may have been a genius, and this quote does send a powerful message, but I do not agree with all the lines. I do hold great respect and dignity in the soldier who has made the choice of putting my life before their own, and a nation's conflict before one's own choices. This is even more astonishing to me when enlisting now will almost certainly mean a tour in Iraq, directly in harm's way. Everyone must have their reasons... best wishes to the troops & comfort to their families.

The Weight of Lies....

The Iraq War bothers me considerably. As a citizen, other than voicing my opinion and donating to drives for troop benefits I feel there is little I can do and this helpless feeling compounds the situation. I would feel confident enough in my state that others in this country feel the same. I am exhausted from this topic. Emotionally the people of this country seem so drained from the constant news and constant horror. Aren't administrators tired of all this? I was not alive for the Vietnam War, and that is a tiresome and sensitive enough subject let alone this disaster. This situation is deplorable not only for the American public morale, but devastates those in Iraq whom are our equals and to live one second in a war torn country for as long as that area has, I'm afraid to say I doubt we would survive. These people have not known peace for their entire existence. We have been involved in conflict of foreign policy, sure, however we never fight theses battles on our home soil among civilian territory. Yes, we have been attacked on home soil, but we have never waged a war here since the American Revolution. The American people are sheltered in many senses because they have never known what war really entails. Even media coverage only goes so far and now the government is attempting to narrow that coverage or divert its attention. I hope "victory," or more appropriately the complete eradication of former typical traditions, whether Islamic or not, is reconsidered because success will not mean green lawns and porch parties for these people. Instead it means total reconstruction of cities, neighborhoods, families, and lives demolished because of a lie.

It Struck a Chord....

In today's class an excellent example of harmony was used to describe an aspect of patriotism. Harmony is much better than the term unity because harmony implies different elements making a whole, instead of unity implying a single element for a single goal. In the comparison to music, harmony may require several different, but particular notes, and each combined together makes a certain noise. Each note is represented and heard, but together they create a single quite pleasant sound. This could be an interesting interpretation of the saying "to strike a chord," when describing an issue among a diverse group of people. The people may all disagree with the issue, but for different reasons. Even with different causes, a group may function together for a similar goal or a similar sound.

We put the 'riot' in "Patriot"

I agree with many points made by Jenson in "Goodbye to Patriotism," however I still feel we cannot abandon the term entirely. I think there are many important traits humans display brought on by positive and negative events in the world motivated by patriotism in any sense of the word. I think many of us agreed on dismantling the first definition of patriotism whereas one is in support of their country and its decisions whether one personally agrees or not. The second definition slightly touches on this as well saying we may "politely disagree with the policies," while supporting the troops fighting for us, but may still experience some backlash for it. The second I don't necessarily think is always true either because mostly (it seems to me) as long as one supports the soldiers stationed around the world, some aspect of common understanding may be shared.

After the class discussion I still do not have a clear definition of patriotism, in modern terms. I think this is because over decades words may be the same, but they hold different meanings; or the word may become a different term. The most important use of patriotism to me is in the role of the citizen. If one chooses not to take an active role in their country that is their choice and right. However if one does want an active role, then I feel it is their duty to speak out and voice opinions to legislators. This government is supposed to be a tool for all of us to use aiding in a better life. A recent poll showed that an astounding number of the US public are against the war in Iraq and Vice President Cheney said "So?" When the administrators make decisions on our behalf without listening to us something is grossly wrong. Even if the decision is still made, the attempt to listen and work with the citizens is of the most importance to at least consider.

One compared a mother protecting her child to the government handling foreign affairs and policies. This is a good perspective because the mother is hopefully making a choice with the best intentions for the child until they are able to comprehend the full depth of the situation. The government makes choices on behalf of the people assuming most of the decisions are beyond the understanding of the average citizens, and this is why we elected them. However once we transfer the responsibility, it is their job and duty to uphold the promise they made to the people of our country, and it is our job and duty to hold them to that promise. I guess that is what patriotism means to me.

Q & A 7 Argument

I didn't like the argument presented in Q A 7 probably because it does not follow even if the first two premises are true. Instead of stating:

I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, it is morally permissible for humans to eat meat.

The argument should follow as:

I. Humans are omnivorous by nature
II. Omnivores can digest meat
III. Therefore, humans can digest meat by nature.

... or something of the like; any other interpretations?
Also, by being able to digest meat, what does it prove? That we should eat meat and its alright to crave it? That's fine because biologically it may be true, but we also may have evolved morally and are waiting for our bodies to catch up.

Appeal to Nature

This 'appeal to nature' reading gives me something to think about mostly because I did not consider it before. I always just assumed natural or organic is good and never thought about anything else as an alternative. I do use synthetic materials in my daily life such as fake leather and other goods like plastic, which may be very useful and not natural. Some may argue the evidence that real leather is a better, more durable material however I choose not to use leather and fur because of their natural property and where they came from, therefore artificial materials are of much use to me in this instance.

Also, there are substances like Aspirin, which is one of the oldest chemical compounds known to civilization, dating back to ancient Egypt. This is a compound found in nature but reproduced in a laboratory for mass production. How does one term artificial? There must be more to it than mere laboratory creation and also include behavior and human response. An example in class was how behaviors may be natural, but surprising because nature often goes against what we as humans observe to be normal (though our scope of history is so small compared to the history of the "natural world"). So if a behavior surprises us in a good or comfortable way it is considered natural, but if the reaction to certain conduct leaves society surprised negatively or in an uncomfortable manner then backlash will occur. Some examples of this may be divorce, promiscuity or non-monogamous relationships, homosexuality, and even vegetarianism because these examples have historically been noted as "unusual" when they very well may not be.

Brainless Cows? The Horror....

The discussion of brainless cows really made me cringe in class today. I mentioned how much of our food is altered from its natural state and then continually reproduced in such a manner. As a student of science, I can usually find the necessary point of such research but in this case I cannot.

Background:
The era of genetically modified food started with 'Golden Rice' which was altered to carry the beta carotene gene. It was done to hopefully help stop childhood blindness and other ails because rice is so vastly consumed and this type of rice is relatively inexpensive to produce and make available for plantation. There are always concerns of GM foods cross contaminating non-GM foods as well as escaping into nature. This has occurred recently, as GM corn for cattle contaminated a shipment of corn for human consumption. I can't remember what the corn was made to do for the cows, but I am guessing it had more starch in it to fatten them up faster. It only caused concern when people who had eaten the corn had an allergic reaction to a specific protein added to the corn. An open question but, what if no one had an allergic reaction? If the corn somehow made it into nature, as with GM animals (like glowing bunnies, fish, pigs, and primates) the devastation it may cause is somewhat immeasurable because 1) we haven't experienced one yet but, 2) as with any foreign species introduced into a new environment it may completely take over the ecosystem, as with zebra mussels or purple heather.

I gave some examples of GM foods such as the tomato and roses that one would have no idea it was modified unless they had taken a course in botany. Tomatoes now contain far too many and incomplete 'locks' which are the folds in the fruit containing the seeds, (cucumbers also have this, it's the middle part) and many commercial roses are anatomically incorrect, lacking many reproductive parts making it necessary to cultivate them by clones from the mother plant.

Which brings me back to the original concern:
Scientists are presenting research to the FDA taking steps to allow cloned beef and other animal products on our shelves. Moving forward from this they are now researching 'brainless' cows. As we conversed in class, often the focus is the suffering of the animals instead of the act of killing them. I doubt that by somehow producing 'brainless' cows you will convince many vegetarians, let alone vegans, to begin consuming meat. The animals are alive, and then are butchered for food, which is the same regardless of whether they have a brain or not. This is where many vegetarians have the issue of eating meat; for me, even though I may like the taste (as shown in my example of my fake bacon - facon) I simply do not want to be responsible for the death of an animal so I may eat because I am able to biologically (and psychologically!) be content only eating plant foods, along with 100% organic milk and eggs (cage-free as well, of course) which does not harm the animal if cared for properly and is a completely natural function. Instead you are giving PETA another reason to go to the extremes to stop such research, when extremes are not the correct path either. Derek compared potential laws against meat consumption to Prohibition, which is entirely accurate. We cannot outlaw something, even if it's well intentioned, when the vast majority of people disagree with it in some way. Can you imagine if the production of meat went into underground operations? The Horror....