Hi all-
Although the status of the proposed field trip is not final, I think a little pre-reading about "Standard Operating Procedure" would not be overly prudent. I know what you're thinking: "Goodwin, where could we find such information on the film?" Well, I found a really interesting review of the film, including analysis of the film maker's, Errol Morris', in depth of the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. The review is entitled "The Fog of Abu Ghraib: Errol Morris and the 'Bad Apples'" by W.J.T Mitchell, and is on page 81 of the May's Harper's magazine. A copy can be located in the library or online at http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/page/0083. From the review, "SOP" sounds amazing (mind the political bias) and hope that this trip comes through.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
although i would love to do the reading you mentioned it is only available to subscribed members, and i am not one. but one interesting thing that i learned from the movie on the arts field trip is that a lot of the torturers in abu gharib were female, and i dont know if that is weird to anyone else but i just sort of had this picture of a GI joe like soldier. i dont know if anyone else finds that surprising or if they are just more informed than me...
Hello. This post is likeable, and your blog is very interesting, congratulations :-). I will add in my blogroll =). If possible gives a last there on my blog, it is about the Celular, I hope you enjoy. The address is http://telefone-celular-brasil.blogspot.com. A hug.
Anna provides an interesting point, and am sorry for neglecting to give my account name and password. Also feel free to check out anything in the 150 years of Harper's, at my dime.
Account Name: gawainlefras
Harper's Password: hosiery
Email: gawainlefras@gmail.com
Thank you Goodwin, the reading is actually very good and going to something about the happenings at Abu Ghraib. The potential field trip would be extremely interesting, if thats the right word to use, because we can see the scale of the issues that are being discussed. It is larger than what we discuss in class. Furthermore, I think that going to a rally would be cool for everybody to see how we could possibly make a difference beyond the Millbrook community, now that we are all leaving soon. Anna's point is interesting about women, even though i knew that women were offenders, I never really thought about it. Not to be sexes, when i think of the military I really only think of men. Which brings up an idea that has always pissed me off, is that only men are included within the draft and women don't have to register. I know this has little to do with Abu Ghraib, but i was thinking about this today during my game and i though it was unfair. Any thoughts?
I think that it is difficult to promote women's rights and NOT address the draft, and though I would like to say that women and men should both be called to serve, I still cannot condone it..mainly for straight up physical reasons. Women are built differently than men, and though there are many many exceptions...on average men are more physically and emotionally capable of fighting in a war.
that said, this article presents an interesting new take, in that women AND men might be drafted to fill certain specified niches in the military that may not neccessarily involve fighting. Its called the Selective Service Plan...heres the article.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html
ps how do these other people keep getting onto our blog?
another thing:
clearly this is a huge controversy, so here is a side that suggests that we should include women in the draft, and an example of some kids on massachusettes who felt the same way.
nevertheless, (this article is dated) both John Kerry and George W. opposed the bill in their election campaigns.
http://media.www.msuspokesman.com/media/storage/paper270/news/2004/11/19/WorldNews/Is.America.Ready.To.See.Women.In.The.Draft-813782.shtml
sorry to get this particular post so far off topic...i like this convo though
whoa there devin.... quite the blog rampage, but on the topic of women and the drat- the historic reason for this is that they needed women to further the human race once the war was over. i can understand this reasoning back in the day, but now i think it is sort of irrelevant.
i feel as though women's rights need to be equalized and put on the same plane as mens. But, how could be do that if women are not eligible for the draft. Even though a draft is not going to occur in the foreseeable future, it is frustrating that women cannot be equalized on that level. As with devin's claim about physical capacities of women being smaller, i think that is bogus cause and their use could be put elsewhere, i.e. selective service plan.
just to clarify, I was not bashing the stregnth of women, (though army training is generally less appealing to women than men) I am simply saying that I think the draft system needs to be modified as a whole so that women can fill specialized roles and fit into the entire procedure more easily both in terms of the social and political implications of this move.
Post a Comment