|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JUDGMENT DEBATEEXAM QUESTION: What is the "greater truth" about the Judgment debate?
This is an opened ended question (not a leading question that tells you want to answer) that allows for you to take the position you prefer and argue your thesis.
Is America more-so fundamentally flawed or fine? Discuss both the pro and con of specific fundamentals, and take a position. Make the case as well for why your basis of judgment should prevail.
Click on Exam Prep for the first paragraph of your essay response.PEQ: What is "greater truth" and what is it for D'Souza & Loewen?
D'Souza Preface: A Funeral Oration
We are better prepared to recognize truth and falsehood if we can argue a question pro and con. ~Aristotle
NOTE: All the reading here (including the blue links) as you scroll down applies to this examination question. It is recommended that you read all of it so as to better ascertain what is the best evidence for you to use to argue your thesis. The title of each specific selection is in bold print.
QUOTES TO PONDERAmerica is gigantic; a gigantic mistake. ~Sigmund Freud
America is a great country. It has many shortcomings, many social inequalities, and it’s tragic that the problem of the blacks wasn’t solved fifty or even a hundred years ago, but it’s still a great country, a country full of opportunities, of freedom! Does it seem nothing to you to be able to say what you like, even against the government, the Establishment? ~Golda Meir
America is a savage nation with a long history of criminal acts. Sadly, American governments, especially the Republican regimes, like killing and oppression. The American motivation for violence has generally been money. Americans will kill anybody for money. ~G.G. Stoctay
In the world at present the two most hated groups are Jews and Americans. This is because: (A) they do most things worse than others or (B) they do most things better than others? What do you see first? ~Dennis PragerThe creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures. No other national story holds such tremendous lessons, for the American people themselves and for the rest of mankind. It now spans four centuries and, as we enter the new millennium, we need to retell it, for if we can learn these lessons and build upon them, the whole of humanity will benefit in the new age which is now opening. American history raises three fundamental questions. First, can a nation rise above the injustices of its origins and, by its moral purpose and performance, atone for them? All nations are born in war, conquest, and crime, usually concealed by the obscurity of a distant past. The United States, from its earliest colonial times, won its title-deeds in the full blaze of recorded history, and the stains on them are there for all to see and censure: the dispossession of a indigenous people, and the securing of self-sufficiency through the sweat and pain of an enslaved race. In the judgmental scales of history, such grievous wrongs must be balanced by the erection of a society dedicated to justice and fairness. Has the United States done this? Has it expiated its organic sins? The second question provides the key to the first. In the process of nation-building, can ideals and altruism--the desire to build the perfect community--be mixed successfully with acquisitiveness and ambition, without which no dynamic society can be built at all? Have the Americans got the mixture right? Have they forged a nation where righteousness has the edge over the needful self-interest? Thirdly, the Americans originally aimed to build an other-worldly 'City on a Hill,' but found themselves designing a republic of the people, to be a model for the entire planet. Have they made good their audacious claims? Have they indeed proved exemplars for humanity? And will they continue to be so in the new millennium? ~Paul Johnson, A History of the American People
What defines America? What are American values? Watch this video clip for one answer:
"American Trinity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k
ASSIGNED READING FROM THE BOOKS YOU BOUGHT
D'Souza Preface: A Funeral Oration-Pericles' Dilemma, and Ours
Ch. 1. Why They Hate UsLoewen's Introduction: "History as Weapon"
“If you cannot answer a man’s argument, do not panic. You can always call him names.” ~Oscar Wilde
Name calling is not an adequate argument. One must address the specifics of an argument to be truly persuasive.
PRIMARY SOURCES
John Winthrop's City upon a Hill, 1630
Now the onely way to avoyde this shipwracke and to provide for our posterity is to followe the Counsell of Micah, to doe Justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our God, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly Affeccion, wee must be willing to abridge our selves of our superfluities, for the supply of others necessities, wee must uphold a familiar Commerce together in all meekenes, gentlenes, patience and liberallity, wee must delight in eache other, make others Condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together, allwayes haveing before our eyes our Commission and Community in the worke, our Community as members of the same body, soe shall wee keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace, the Lord will be our God and delight to dwell among us, as his owne people and will commaund a blessing upon us in all our wayes, soe that wee shall see much more of his wisdome power goodnes and truthe then formerly wee have beene acquainted with, wee shall finde that the God of Israell is among us, when tenn of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies, when hee shall make us a prayse and glory, that men shall say of succeeding plantacions: the lord make it like that of New England: for wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our god in this worke wee have undertaken and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a byword through the world, wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of god and all professours for Gods sake; wee shall shame the faces of many of gods worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into Cursses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whether wee are going: And to shutt upp this discourse with that exhortacion of Moses that faithfull servant of the Lord in his last farewell to Israell Deut. 30. Beloved there is now sett before us life, and good, deathe and evill in that wee are Commaunded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another to walke in his wayes and to keepe his Commaundements and his Ordinance, and his lawes, and the Articles of our Covenant with him that wee may live and be multiplyed, and that the Lord our God may blesse us in the land whether wee goe to possesse it: But if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other Gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good Land whether wee passe over this vast Sea to possesse it;
Therefore lett us choose life, that wee, and our Seede, may live; by obeyeing his voyce, and cleaveing to him, for hee is our life, and our prosperity.
Excerpt from "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" (1852) by Frederick Douglass
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival....
The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. 'Ethiopia, shall, stretch. out her hand unto God." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:
God speed the hour, the glorious hour,
When none on earth
Shall exercise a lordly power,
Nor in a tyrant's presence cower;
But to all manhood's stature tower,
By equal birth!
SECONDARY SOURCES
Excerpt from Thomas Sowell's INTELLECTUALS & SOCIETY
A CONFLICT OF VISIONS: The anointed vs. the tragic
"Man was born-free, and he is everywhere in chains" ~Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The Vision of the Anointed. At the heart of the social vision prevalent among contemporary intellectuals is the belief that there are "problems" created by existing institutions and that "solutions" to these problems can be excogitated by intellectuals. This vision is both a vision of society and a vision of the role of intellectuals within society. In short, intellectuals have seen themselves ... as an anointed elite, people with a mission to lead others in one way or another to better lives.Large, unmerited differences in the economic and social prospects of people born into different social circumstances have long been a central theme of intellectuals with the vision of the anointed. Contrasts between the grinding poverty of some and the luxurious extravagance of others, compounded by similar unmerited contrasts in social status, are among the problems that have long dominated the agenda of those with the visions of the anointed.
More general sources of unhappiness among people across the social spectrum- the psychic problems created by moral stigma, as well as the horrors of war, for example- are also things for which intellectual solutions are sought.
"The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself." ~Plato
The Tragic Vision of Human Nature. This vision of society, in which there are many "problems" to be "solved" by applying the ideas of morally anointed intellectual elites is by no means the only vision, however much that vision may be prevalent among today's intellectuals. A conflicting vision has co-existed for centuries- a vision in which the inherent flaws of human beings are the fundamental problem and social contrivances are simply imperfect means of trying to cope with that problem- these imperfections themselves being products of the inherent shortcomings of human beings.
This is a tragic vision of the human condition that is very different from the vision of the anointed."Solutions," are not expected by those who see many of the frustrations, ills, and anomalies of life- the tragedy of the human condition- as being due to constraints inherent in human beings, singly and collectively, and in the physical world in which they live. In contrast to the vision of today's anointed, where existing society is discussed largely in terms of its inadequacies and the improvements which the anointed have to offer, the tragic vision regards civilization itself as something that requires great and constant efforts merely to be preserved- with these efforts to be based on actual experience, not on "exciting" new theories.
This constrained vision is thus a tragic vision- not in the sense of believing that life must always be sad and gloomy, for much happiness and fulfillment are possible within a constrained world, but tragic in limitations that cannot be overcome merely by compassion, commitment, or other virtues which those with the vision of the anointed advocate or attribute to themselves.
The two visions differ fundamentally, not only in how they see the world but also in how those who believe in these visions see themselves. If you happen to believe in 'free markets, judicial restraint, traditional values and other features of the tragic vision, then you are just someone who believes in free markets, judicial restraint and traditional values. There is no personal exaltation resulting from those beliefs. But to be for "social justice" and "saving the environment," or to be "anti-war" is more than just a set of beliefs about empirical facts. This vision puts you on a higher moral plane as someone concerned and compassionate, someone who is for peace in the world, a defender of the downtrodden, and someone who wants to preserve the beauty of nature and save the planet from being polluted by others less caring. In short, one vision makes you somebody special and the other vision does not. These visions are not symmetrical.
Unworthy Opponents. Because the vision of the anointed is a vision of themselves as well as a vision of the world, when they are defending that vision they are not simply defending a set of hypotheses about external events; they are in a sense defending their very souls- and the zeal and even ruthlessness with which they defend their vision are not surprising under these circumstances.
While there are individual variations in this, as with most things, there are nevertheless general patterns, which many have noticed, both in our times and in earlier centuries. Disagree with someone on the right and he is likely to think you obtuse, wrong, foolish, a dope. Disagree with someone on the left and he is more likely to think you selfish, a sell-out, insensitive, possibly evil.
Supporters of both visions; by definition, believe that those with the opposing vision are mistaken. But that is not enough for those with the vision of the anointed, It has long been taken for granted by those with the vision of the anointed that their opponents were lacking in compassion.
This, of course, in no way proves that conservatives' arguments on social or political issues are more valid. What it does show is how far wrong people can go when they believe what is convenient for their vision and see no need to test such convenient assumptions against any empirical evidence. The fact that the assumption that conservatives were less concerned about other people's well-being prevailed so strongly and so unquestioningly for so long-literally for centuries- before even being tested reinforces the point.
The ongoing debate over what to believe about America is oftentimes waged with the use of history. Here are some examples:
Excerpt from "The New Patriotism" by Richard Stengel
Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine
Thursday, Jun. 26, 2008Patriotism has always been the most abstract of American virtues--which may be why we fight so ferociously over the symbols that help us define it. Too often those symbols--flags, anthems, slogans--which are meant to unite us, end up dividing us.
To many people, the meaning of patriotism is simple: love of country. But love of a country that is dedicated to a proposition, not a king or a religion--a nation that is based on ideas, not blood--has always created a different kind of citizen. American patriotism expresses itself most truly in actions, not words. Our patriotism shapes our responsibilities as citizens, how we navigate in the world and, ultimately, what it means to be an American.
There is nothing more important than those ideals, and we are in the midst of a historic presidential race that will help redefine them for the 21st century. There have always been twin strains of patriotism in our history, two different definitions of American exceptionalism: a sense that our greatness is based on our provenance and what we have achieved, and a belief that our greatness lies in our promise and how we attempt to live up to our ideals.
Conservatives and liberals have been arguing about these two strains for years, and that debate has become the pivot of our politics. Republicans have contended that they are the true legatees of the nation's heritage and attack Democrats for being ashamed of America. Democrats in turn depict Republicans as chest-thumping nationalists who prevent America from living up to its ideals. Both of these are caricatures.
On the surface, defining patriotism is simple. It is love and devotion to country. The questions are why we love it and how we express our devotion. That's where the arguments begin.
The conservative answer is implicit in the title of John McCain's 1999 book, Faith of My Fathers. Why should we love America? In part, at least, because our forefathers did. Think about the lyrics to America ("My Country, 'Tis of Thee"): "Land where my fathers died,/ Land of the Pilgrims' pride." Most liberals don't consider those the best lines of the song. What about the Americans whose fathers died somewhere else? What about all the nasty stuff the Pilgrims did? But conservatives generally want to conserve, and that requires a reverence for the past. What McCain's title implies is that patriotism isn't a choice; it's an inheritance. Being born into a nation is like being born into a religion or a family. You may be called on to reaffirm the commitment as you reach adulthood--as McCain did by joining the military--but it is impressed upon you early on, by those who have come before.
SAMPLE: Liberal Patriotism
"America's image in the rest of the world" By: Ruthie Kelly, State of Mind Editor for THE DAILY AZTEC (Posted: 9/10/08)
We thought everyone in the world wanted to come here, work hard and live like we do. That's the main reason why the attacks came as such a shock. We could not imagine why anyone would want to attack us, the first front of freedom, democracy and justice. The attackers, we were certain, must hate freedom and democracy and must be evil, pathetic and small. We could defeat them easily and be completely justified in our actions.
In the series of events that have taken place since then, that illusion has been quietly unraveling. America has been invading countries and killing civilians with motives that look suspiciously similar to oil company interests.
Our government has been spying on citizens, impeding freedom of the press while flouting the Constitution, federal law and our own sense of morality. We've blatantly ignored the health care of our veterans and rescue workers. Our government and business leaders have been lying and exploiting the public for their own self-serving interests. Our soldiers have been sexually abusing and torturing prisoners of war on a level that surpasses that of our most despised enemies.
Where is the America we sing about in anthems and learn about in school, the noble, hard-working people who are just trying to fulfill the American dream? You cannot find any traces of it in recent history. It's hard to find that version of the U.S. in any part of our history, actually.
The America we learn and sing about is an ideal; a bar of excellence that we have never really met. Our mission statement and our values are noble, unique and inspiring for a good reason.
America represents hope, freedom and justice, and is the first unlikely "experiment" in letting citizens rule, not monarchs or dictators. Unquestionably, America has fought for just causes in the past. The problem is, we haven't truly lived up to our own expectations. We haven't fulfilled the promise that our country represents. The country we sing about is an amazing, wonderful thing to aspire to be a part of, but it's not the country we neither are, nor ever really have been. We've come close, on occasion, but we've never been able to overcome the taint of American-style business and politics, which breeds corruption, greed and apathy.
The rest of the world watched and hoped. Surely the richest nation in the world, with the freest citizens, the most privileged workforce and the most access to information would be able to maintain a power structure that goes against human nature. Not only has the world been disappointed, but it has been frequently confronted with our refusal to acknowledge this failure. We've fallen short, but we act like we've surpassed every goal with flying colors. Americans have notoriously short memories. It's infuriating to be constantly condescended to, especially when the country in question is so far from perfect.That's why conservatives tend to believe that loving America today requires loving its past. Conservatives often fret about "politically correct" education, which forces America's students to dwell on its past sins. They're forever writing books like America: The Last Best Hope (by William J. Bennett) and America: A Patriotic Primer (by Lynne Cheney), which teach children that historically the U.S. was a pretty nifty place. These books are based on the belief that our national forefathers are a bit like our actual mothers and fathers: if we dishonor them, we dishonor ourselves. That's why conservatives got so upset when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" (a comment she says was misinterpreted). In the eyes of conservatives, those comments suggested a lack of gratitude toward the nation that--as they saw it--has given her and the rest of us so much.
Conservatives know America isn't perfect, of course. But they grade on a curve. Partly that's because they generally take a dimmer view of human nature than do their counterparts on the left. When evaluating America, they're more likely to remember that for most of human history, tyranny has been the norm. By that standard, America looks pretty good. Conservatives worry that if Americans don't appreciate--and celebrate--their nation's past accomplishments, they'll assume the country can be easily and dramatically improved. And they'll end up making things worse. But if conservatives believe that America is, comparatively, a great country, they also believe that comparing America with other countries is beside the point. It's like your family: it doesn't matter whether it's objectively better than someone else's. You love it because it is yours.
Hoping for a Braver FutureIf conservatives tend to see patriotism as an inheritance from a glorious past, liberals often see it as the promise of a future that redeems the past. It wasn't great in the past? It's not great as it is? The liberal answer is, Not great enough. For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law. American history is a chronicle of the distance between those ideals and reality. And American patriotism is the struggle to narrow the gap. Thus, patriotism isn't about honoring and replicating the past; it's about surpassing it.
[L]iberals more often lionize people who display patriotism by calling America on the carpet for violating its highest ideals. For liberals more than for conservatives, there is something quintessentially patriotic about Frederick Douglass's famous 1852 oration, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?," in which the great African-American abolitionist refused to celebrate the anniversary of America's founding, telling a Rochester, N.Y., crowd that "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them."
How to Be a Patriot
On inspection, the liberal and conservative brands of patriotism both have defects. In a country where today's nativists are yesterday's immigrants and where change is practically a national religion, conservative patriotism can seem anachronistic. To be Spanish or Russian or Japanese is to imagine that you share a common ancestry and common traditions that trace back into the mists of time. But in America, where most people hail from somewhere else, that kind of blood-and-soil patriotism makes no sense. There is something vaguely farcical about conservative panic over Mexican flags in Los Angeles when Irish flags have long festooned Boston's streets on St. Patrick's Day. Linking patriotism too closely to a reverence for inherited tradition contradicts one of America's most powerful traditions: that our future shouldn't be dictated by our past.
By defining Americanism too narrowly and backwardly, conservative patriotism risks becoming clubby. And by celebrating America too unabashedly--without sufficient regard for America's sins--it risks degenerating from patriotism into nationalism, a self-righteous, chest-thumping ideology that celebrates America at the expense of the rest of the world.
But if conservative patriotism can be too exclusionary, liberal patriotism risks not being exclusionary enough. If liberals love America purely because it embodies ideals like liberty, justice and equality, why shouldn't they love Canada--which from a liberal perspective often goes further toward realizing those principles--even more? And what do liberals do when those universal ideals collide with America's self-interest? Giving away the federal budget to Africa would probably increase the net sum of justice and equality on the planet, after all. But it would harm Americans and thus be unpatriotic.
SAMPLE: CONSERVATIVE PATRIOTISM
The Speech We'd Like to Hear from An Academy Award Winner by Dennis Prager, World Net Daily, March 7, 2006
Here's a speech we would like to hear from an Academy Award winner:
First, I want to thank my country, the United States of America. Every one of us here has this country to thank for enabling us to live lives of unprecedented freedom and unimaginable affluence. Too many of us forget that no other country in history has offered such opportunities to people in our profession or in any other profession, for that matter.
Second, I want to thank the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. While we bask in freedom and spend a good part of our lives going from party to party and award show to award show, tens of thousands of my fellow Americans are confronting a menace to our world as great as that fought by previous generations fighting Nazism and communism.
At the same time, I also want to apologize to these troops for my profession not having made even one motion picture about any of the heroic American fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. This country is fighting a war, Hollywood. You may think this war is unwise, waged under mistaken, or even false, pretenses. And as an actor in Hollywood, you are overwhelmingly likely to hate this commander in chief. But even the men and women of Hollywood must recognize that America is fighting the worst people of our time, people who hurt every group Hollywood claims to care about – minorities, women, gays – people who engage in the sins Hollywood most professes to oppose – intolerance and violence – far more than anyone else on the planet.
We in Hollywood walk around thinking we are very important. That is why this year's nominated films for best picture are largely pictures with messages, pictures that relatively few people actually see. But although Hollywood was always concerned with politics, we have let ourselves be taken over by those for whom their message is more significant than the primary purposes of film –to illuminate life and to entertain. Yes, entertain.
Eminent thinkers, from Tolstoy to contemporary philosophers like Martha Nussbaum and George Kateb, have denounced patriotism on exactly those grounds: that it's wrong to prefer one's countrymen and -women to people in other lands. Patriotism, in Kateb's words, is illiberal; it "is an attack on the Enlightenment." There's a lot of truth in that. Liberals may love America in part because it aspires to certain ideals, but if they love it only because it aspires to those ideals, then what they really love is the ideals, not America. Conservatives are right. To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.When it comes to patriotism, conservatives and liberals need each other, because love of country requires both affirmation and criticism. It's a good thing that Americans fly the flag on July 4. In a country as diverse as ours, patriotic symbols are a powerful balm. And if people stopped flying the flag every time the government did something they didn't like, it would become an emblem not of national unity but of political division. On the other hand, waving a flag, like holding a Bible, is supposed to be a spur to action. When it becomes an end in itself, America needs people willing to follow in the footsteps of the prophets and remind us that complacent ritual can be the enemy of true devotion.
Patriotism should be proud but not blind, critical yet loving. And liberals and conservatives should agree that if patriotism entails no sacrifice, if it is all faith and no works, then something has gone wrong. The American who volunteers to fight in Iraq and the American who protests the war both express a truer patriotism than the American who treats it as a distant spectacle with no claim on his talents or conscience.
So is wearing the flag pin good or bad? It is both; it all depends on where and why. If you're going to a Young Americans for Freedom meeting, where people think patriotism means "my country right or wrong," leave it at home and tell them about Frederick Douglass, who wouldn't celebrate the Fourth of July while his fellow Americans were in bondage. And if you're going to a meeting of the cultural-studies department at Left-Wing U., where patriotism often means "my country wrong and wronger," slap it on, and tell them about Mike Christian, who lay half-dead in a North Vietnamese jail, stitching an American flag.
And if anyone gives you a hard time, tell him he doesn't know what true patriotism is.
Lynndie England holding a leash attached to a prisoner, known to the guards as "Gus," who is collapsed on the floor.
Beginning in 2004, charges of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention. These acts were committed by some personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company of the United States Army.
From an Australian whose son is in Iraq
Gentlemen
I am an Australian and my son is an Australian - as far as we are concerned there is not place on God's earth better than Australia, and there are no people better than Australians.
That was until the past week or so.
My son is in the Australian Army and he is currently on deployment in Iraq. I can not go into his duties in great depth, but shall we say that he and his fellow army buddies are on a glorified guard duty looking after the Australian Embassy. They don't go out looking for "action", though it is a different story in Afghanistan, there the Aussie troops chase the baddies over the hills and into the valleys..
My son and I just ended a long 'phone conversation and here are some of his comments, believe me this is what he said. We have all seen the bullshit emails written by some clown in his lounge room pretending to be at the coal face, but this is what was said.:
"Before I came over here I thought we (the Australian Army) were pretty shit hot..... was I ever wrong!....The Yanks (I hope you don't mind me using that word) are so professional from the top to the bottom that it is almost embarrassing to be in their company, and to call yourself a soldier....don't get me wrong, we are good at what we do but the Yanks are so much better.....they are complete at what they do, how they do it and their attitude is awesome....they don't complain they just get on with the job and they do it right.....I carry a Minimi (SAW) so I am not real worried about a confrontation but I tell you I feel safer just knowing that the US Army is close by....If we got into trouble I know that our boys would come running and we could deal with it but they would probably be passed by a load of Hummers. No questions asked, no glory sought, the Americans would just fight with us and for us because that is their nature, to protect those in need of protection.....We use the American Mess so you could say that we are fed by the Americans.....they have every right to be pissed at that but they don't bitch about that they just make us feel as welcome as possible....what gets to me is that the Yanks don't walk around with a "we are better than you attitude" and they could because they are, they treat us as equals and as brothers in arms. If nothing else, coming here has taught me that the Americans are a truly great Nation and a truly great bunch of people.....Let's face it they don't HAVE to be here, they could stay in America and beat the shit out of anyone who threatened them, BUT THEY ARE HERE because they believe they should be here, and the Iraqis would be screwed if they weren't here.....When I come home, you and I we are going to the US, we will buy some bikes and we are going riding...."
The reason why I am sharing this with you is because I realize that you (as a nation) must get pretty pissed with all the criticism you receive by the so-called "know it alls" who are sitting at home - safe. The reality is that they are safe, just as I am, because of America. If the world went arse up tomorrow there is f**k all we (Australia) could do about it, but I know that the Americans would be there putting themselves on the line for others. That to me is the sign of greatness.
The most precious thing in my life is my son, I look at him and I thank God that I am fortunate enough to be able to spend time in his company.
We laugh, we discuss, we argue, we dummy spit, we have the same blood. I am not happy that he is where he is but that is his duty. He joined the Army to protect and to defend, not to play games. I mightn't like it but I accept it. My reasons for not liking it are selfish and self centered.
I felt assured that he would be safe because he is in a well trained army with an excellent record, BUT NOW, I feel a whole lot better knowing that he is with your sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.
Whilst he was growing up. I was always there to look after him, I would not let harm befall him and I would always put myself before him to protect him. I can't do that now. When it comes to looking after him now he and his mates will do the job, but also THANK GOD FOR AMERICA.
Gentlemen, I have rambled on for too long. but as I finish I say to you, as a foreigner and outsider, a nation is only a collection of its people and its attitude is the attitude of its people, collectively and as individuals. I am really glad you are here on this Earth and I respect you as a nation and as people.
Stand up and feel proud because you deserve it, there is no one else who will do what America does without question. The next time someone howls you down, take some comfort in the fact that America is defending their right to act like an idiot.
Finally, thank you for looking after my son.
Peter Turner
WHAT ARE THE VALUE CONFLICTS AND ASSUMPTIONS?
Source: M. Neil Browne & Stuart M. Keeley, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinki. 7th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004.
What Are Value Conflicts and Assumptions? While an author usually offers explicit reasons why she comes to a certain conclusion, she also makes certain assumptions that lead her to a certain conclusion. By identifying value conflicts, you determine whether the author's value preferences match your value preferences. Consequently, you have a tool for determining whether you will accept or reject an author's conclusion.Anyone trying to convince you to believe a particular position will make an attempt to present reasons consistent with that position. Hence, at first glance almost every argument appears to "make sense." The visible structure looks good. But the visible, stated reasons are not the only ideas that serve to prove or support the conclusion. Hidden or unstated beliefs may be at least as significant in understanding the argument. Let's examine the importance of these unstated ideas by considering the following brief argument:
The government should prohibit the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. More and more evidence has demonstrated that smoking has harmful effects on the health of both the smoker and those exposed to smoking.
The reason-at first glance-supports the conclusion. If the government wants to prohibit a product, it makes sense that it should provide evidence that the product is bad. But it is also possible that the reason given can be true and yet not necessarily support the conclusion. What if you believe that it is the individual's responsibility-not the collective responsibility of government-to take care of his or her own welfare? If so, from your perspective, the reason no longer supports the conclusion. This reasoning is convincing to you only if you agree with certain unstated ideas that the writer has
taken for granted. In this case, one idea taken for granted is that collective responsibility is more desirable than individual responsibility when an individual's welfare is threatened.In all arguments, there will be certain ideas taken for granted by the writer. Typically, these ideas will not be stated. You will have to find them by reading between the lines. These ideas are important invisible links in the reasoning structure, the glue that holds the entire argument together. Until you supply these links, you cannot truly understand the argument.
If you miss the hidden links, you will often find yourself believing something that had you been more reflective, you would never have accepted. Remember: the visible surface of an argument will almost always be dressed in its best clothes because the person presenting the argument wishes to encourage you to make the argument your own. This chapter can be particularly useful to you as a critical thinker because it prepares you to look at the full argument, not just its more attractive features.
To fully understand an argument, you must identify the assumptions.
Assumptions are:
>hidden or unstated (in most cases),
>taken for granted,
>influential in determining the conclusion, and
>potentially deceptive.Discovering Values
Before you can discover the importance of values in shaping conclusions, you must have some understanding of what a value is. Values, as we will use the term, are ideas that someone thinks are worthwhile. You will find that it is the importance one assigns to abstract ideas that has the major influence on one's choices and behavior.
Usually objects, experiences, and actions are desired because of some idea we value. For example, we may choose to do things that provide us with contacts with important people. We value "important people" (concrete idea) because we value "status" (abstract idea). When we use the word value in this chapter, we will be referring to an (abstract) idea representing what someone thinks is important and good.
Attention: Values are the unstated ideas that people see as worthwhile. They provide standards of conduct by which we measure the quality of human behavior.
Now let us give you an aid for identifying values-a list of some commonly held values. Every value on our list may be an attractive candidate for your list. Thus, after you look at our list, pause for a moment and choose those values that are most important to you. They will be those values that most often playa role in shaping your opinions and behavior:
adventure, ambition, autonomy, collective responsibility, comfort, competition, cooperation, courage, creativity, flexibility, freedom of speech, generosity, harmony, honesty, justice, novelty, order, patriotism, peace, rationality, security, spontaneity, tolerance, tradition, wisdom
From Values to Value AssumptionsWhen a writer takes a stand on controversial prescriptive issues, he is usually depreciating one commonly shared value while upholding another. For example, when someone advocates the required licensing of prospective parents, collective responsibility is being treated as more important than individual responsibility. So when you look for value assumptions, look for an indication of value priorities. Ask yourself what values are being upheld by this position and what values are being relatively downgraded in importance.
Attention: A value assumption is an implicit preference for one value over another in a particular context. We use value preferences and value priorities.
When you have found a person's value preference in a particular argument, you should not expect that same person to necessarily have the same value priority when discussing a different controversy. A person does not have the same value priorities without regard to the issue being discussed. The context and factual issues associated with a controversy also greatly influence how far we're willing to go with a particular value preference. We hold our value preferences only up to a point. Thus, for example, those who prefer freedom of choice over the welfare of the community in most situations (such as wearing clothing that displays an image of the flag) may shift that value preference when they see the possibility of too much damage to the welfare of the community (such as in the case of the right of a person to give a racist speech.)
In other words, value assumptions are very contextual; they apply in one setting, but we may make quite a different value priority when the specifics of the prescriptive issue change. Critical thinking plays a major role in thinking deeply about whether we want to assign priority to particular values in a given instance.
Typical Value Conflicts
Typical Value Conflict and Sample Controversies
1.
loyalty-honesty
1.
Should you tell your parents about your sister's drug habit?
2.
competition-cooperation
2.
Do you support the grading system?
3.
freedom of press-national security
3.
Is it wise to hold weekly presidential press conferences?
4.
equality-individualism
4.
Are racial quotas for employment fair?
5.
order-freedom of speech
5.
Should we imprison those with radical ideas?
6.
security-excitement
6.
Should you choose a dangerous profession?
7.
generosity-material success
7.
Is it desirable to give financial help to a beggar?
8.
rationality-spontaneity
8.
Should you check the odds before placing a bet?
9.
tradition-novelty
9.
Should divorces be easily available?
The Communicator's Background as a Clue to Value AssumptionsWe suggested earlier that a good starting point in finding value assumptions is to check the background of the author. Find out as much as you can about the value preferences usually held by a person like the writer. Is he a corporate executive, a union leader, a Republican Party official, a doctor, or an apartment tenant? What interests does such a person naturally wish to protect? There's certainly nothing inherently wrong with pursuing self-interest, but such pursuits often limit the value assumptions a particular writer will tolerate.
One caution is important. It isn't necessarily true that, because a writer is a member of a group, she shares the particular value assumptions of the group. It would be a mistake to presume that every individual who belongs to a given group thinks identically. We all know that business people, farmers, and firefighters sometimes disagree among themselves when discussing particular controversies. Investigating the writer's background as a clue to her value assumptions is only a clue, and, like other clues, it can be misleading unless it is used with care.
