Journal entry week 1

[s...@exeter.edu]

Week 1


Class talked about what it means to refute. We were supposed to
compare Rome and the USA, so essays would criticize the book and we
will critique the reviews. Class plans about essay 1 which is Hanson
v. Murphy. Students asked a lot of questions. Topic sentence should
start out with: Opinion is wrong because of several reasons. Analyzed
Hanson’s argument and he said that Murphy has a biased view,
historical evidence all fits his biased view. He focused on silly
reasons, but he compliments Murphy in the end and says that American
can change.

Many questions asked about format of essay. Got me thinking about how
I should structure mine. Maybe I’ll do something about drawing
comparisons between private property and accepted disparities of
wealth. I might also describe Roman road systems to support military
power.


Hanson, Victor (2007). Pop romanizing. From National Review
Magazine.
victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071307.html

This article is written in a very organized manner. Hanson manages to
grasp and hone down his viewpoints on the writing style, research, and
tone of Cullen Murphy in his book, Are We Rome. He seems to be an
expert on the issues and societies that plague both of the
superpowers, America and the Roman Empire. This allows him to bring
in other sources and previous research to support his case. I think
this article would be very useful in cases where I would have to bring
in more evidence and standpoints from other sources to make my writing
more credible and unbiased.

Kamiya, Gary (2007). Book review: are we like Rome. Retrieved
September 10,
2008, From Vermont Commons. Website:
http://www.Vitcommons.org/blog/2007/book-review-empire-are-we-us-rome.html

This author distinctively incorporates a bit of humor and sarcasm in
his column. Furthermore, he links the modern American politicians and
government to the Roman Empire’s executive system as well which helps
me to see this comparisons and contrasts in a different light.
Likewise, he meticulously details the similarities between the two
superpowers such as their joint fondness for great feats of
engineering and emphasis in military, culture, commerce, technology,
and ideas. Kamiya then proceeds to write about the differences in
several strong, developed points that are loaded with logic and quotes
from Murphy’s novel, Are We Rome. This article would be especially
beneficial to me when I have to develop my ideas further and apply
some of the Roman characteristics to the 21st century.

[o]

Week 2
Half Draft of e1.1
In his May 28, 2007 article “Pop Romanizing,” Victor Hanson
wrongly
claims that Murphy has a lack of historical evidence, employs
superficial comparisons of Rome and America, and used historical
evidence which all fit a biased view. Murphy was able to get the
fundamental reasons why America faced the end of its empire if it did
not change supported by much research of Roman history. Hanson’s
critique proved that he had not carefully read Murphy’s book Are We
Rome?
Cullen Murphy’s Are We Rome?, does “draw extensively from the
evidence of the ancient world (Hanson, 2007, p. 3).” Murphy isn’t
afraid to make informed generalizations about both contemporary
America and write concrete facts about the Romans with a lot of
research. He drew comparisons that Romans as well as Americans were
obsessed with lawyers and private property. They “relished the ritual
humiliation of public figures (Murphy, 2007, p. 14)” and also
accepted
disparities of wealth. Murphy flushed out numbers when describing
Roman road systems to support his parallel of military power. All
these specific details demonstrate that Murphy spent a lot of time
researching historical data about Rome. Hanson’s reasoning was faulty
because he thought that Murphy made assumptions, but he didn’t
realize
that Murphy drew them out of facts that he wrote in detail throughout
his book.
Hanson also pointed out that Murphy talked about resemblances
between
Rome and America that were shallow. Yet, Murphy wisely chose a few
areas where his comparisons were most illuminating and where we could
improve. He avoided overdrawing his analogies when he gave his six
parallels in the view of self, military might, corruption, the view
of
world, permeable borders, and complexity. Instead of writing a
thousand thesis points about more comparisons, Murphy limited them to
six. His citations of massive corruption, the loss of faith in
government, and the degradation of civil society were especially
compelling. Murphy wrote that Rome had trouble maintaining a
distinction between public and private responsibilities. The
government, of course, became dysfunctional. He wrote that the
“parallels aren’t fixed in place, and they don’t point to an
inescapable future. Taken as they are, they trace a path that leads
to
foreseeable consequences- a path that Rome has already been down
(Murphy, 2007, p. 6).”
References

Hanson, Victor (2007). Pop romanizing. From National Review
Magazine.

Kamiya, Gary (2007). Book review: Are we like Rome. Retrieved

September 10, 2008, From Vermont Commons. Website:

http://www.Vitcommons.org/blog/2007/book-review-empire-are-we-us-rome...
Murphy, Cullen (2007). Are we rome? United States of America:
First Mariner Books.

[o]

Week 3
Professor O’Connell discussed today about the political spectrum. I
thought it was interesting. He explained that radicals, anarchists,
communists, and socialists are all left wing while radicals,
fascists,
and libertarians are all right wing. Then there’s another range in
between the extremes. I decided to draw comparisons with the Roman
government.
To Do:
--Research historical data about resemblances between the hierarchies
of Roman America
--Study analogies of Murphy’s six parallels in the view of self,
military might, corruption, the view of the world, permeable borders,
and complexity
--I will point out that Murphy had trouble maintaining a distinction

between public and private responsibilities

--Trace how Roman government became dysfunctional over time
--Contrast the era of the two empires: Roman’s entire history took
place during the Iron Age while America in its short history of 300
years leapt through the Industrial Age to the Information Age and the
BioTech Age
--America rejected slavery while Rome had slaves.
--Rome started as a city-state while America was a continental power.
--America adores self-made men while Rome looked down on
entrepreneurship and valued inherited wealth instead.
Murphy, Cullen (2007). Are we Rome? United States of America: First
Mariner
Books.
I believe that by reading sections of this book, there was a
presentation of strong logic to buttress all of Murphy’s six points.
He succeeded in the goal to install a willingness to change in the
reader. His positive view was the America can avoid the fate of
Rome. Murphy studied the issues in-depth, but presented to the
reader
a concise version of his discoveries.
Plutarch (1962 ed.). Six lives by Plutarch: Marius, Sulla, Crassus,
Pompey, Caesar,
Cicero. New York: Penguin Classics.
Rome had brash arrogance and unsuitable military government
corruption
and complexity. Romans relished the ritual humiliation of public
figures. I was able to compare America by our political comic strips
and the media’s constant baiting of politicians. Nothing has really
changed much except today the surveillance is 24-7-365 on hundreds of
cable and internet news channels and blogs.

[o]

Week 4
Half Draft of e1.2
In his July 30, 2007 article “Are We Rome,” Rod Dreher points
out his
approval of some ideas of Murphy and disagreements with others.
Although Dreher praises Murphy for mentioning the military stretch,
self-confidence, and immigration policies, he criticizes Murphy by
stating that he did not pay enough attention to the health of our
culture. In Dreher’s mistaken belief, the solution to the problem
would be having a “robust belief in God or some other authoritative
ideal (Dreher, 2007, p. 3).”
Dreher made it clear how he liked most of Murphy’s points-the
brash
arrogance, an unsuitable military, government corruption, and
complexity. Dreher flushed out each of the arguments by quoting other
historians and relating Rome to the current Bush administration.
There
were quite well-made examples that Dreher picked out himself as to
comparing the “republic with flinty yeomen and grasping bureaucrats
(Dreher, 2007, p. 3)” to latter-day Washington with “oily
machinations
of the lobbying industry (Dreher, 2007, p. 3).” Dreher went into
further, solid details about how Murphy did mention crucial
differences between the U.S. and Rome about how the U.S. was a
democracy while Rome was not. All of his statements showed he had a
clear understanding of what Murphy intended his readers to reap.
However, one of Dreher’s evaluations of Murphy not paying a
lot of
attention to the health of our culture is twisted from the truth.
America’s current day culture, which is obsessed with sex and drugs,
has nothing to relate to Rome’s citizens. More specifically, the
reasoning that America’s unhealthy culture came from carelessness
towards religion is faulty. American citizens do not neglect
religion;
whether it is Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or atheism. We
are receptive to many religions in the country today with none being
prohibited from being practiced. It is misleading to say that Rome’s
morality fell due to the absence of religious figures. The Romans
were
very religious towards their gods as shown in huge temples that the
Romans made. Their traditional sacrifices to their gods and devotion
to praying to multiple gods were breathtaking in commitment and
devotion. As historian Miranda Lever said, “The Romans believed that
the gods controlled their lives, and as a result, spent a great deal
of time worshipping them. Most families even had their own shrines
and
altars to worship (Lever, 2001, p.2).”
References
Dreher, R. (2007). Are we Rome? From Dallas News
Lever, M. (2007). Book review: religion of Rome. Retrieved
September 20, 2008, From Mifflin Website:
http://www.mifflin.org/blog/2007/religionofrome.html
Murphy, C. (2007). Are we Rome? United States of America:
First Mariner Books.

[o]

Week 5
I wrote an essay about the information discussed in class and did
some
research about David Weigel’s article
Ab Urbe Condita
In David Weigel’s July 9, 2007 column, “Quo Vadimus? Looking
at
Washington, dreaming of Rome,” he incorrectly mocks Cullen Murphy’s
book, Are We Rome?, of its supposedly flippant writing style and
unrelated content. Claiming that Murphy “hardly writes about
anything
without treading through it…he published some of the glummest
predictive journalism ever written (Weigel, 2007, p. 3),” he
continues
to point out the flaws in Murphy’s reasoning. Despite Weigel’s
acerbic tone throughout his assertions, he overlooks several key
concepts and fails to fully grasp the profound meaning in Murphy’s
thought-provoking book.
Murphy consistently depicts not only the similarities between
the
powerful Roman Empire and America, but the crucial differences as
well. In a series of detailed reasoning and evidence, he makes it
clear that these seemingly insignificant distinctions may be the keys
to avoiding Rome’s dismal fate: A once glorious empire that crumbled
because of its insecure borders, failing economy, and thoughtless
government decisions -which ultimately led to the fall of Rome. He
even boils down to the details, “Rome was economically static,
America
is economically transformative. Rome was always a slave-holding
state, America started out with slavery but eventually casted slavery
aside. Rome was never a democracy, and it had no middle class;
whereas for Americans the middle class is the core... (Murphy, p.
200).” However, Weigel completely ignores these differences and makes
a slapdash statement by immediately asserting that America is
identical to Rome, “Is America the new Roman Empire? Yes, it
obviously is. America dominates the planet militarily, economically,
culturally, as much or more than Rome ever did. Americas know their
position and their superiority as surely as the Romans did (Weigel,
p.
2).” He failed to understand Murphy’s purpose of illustrating that
although America was similar to Rome in many aspects, that there were
fundamental differences as well.
Even more baffling is the fact how Weigel then contradicts
himself
and incorrectly diagnoses the difference between the Roman Empire and
America, “Our confidence leads us to make the same kinds of blunders
as the Romans (Weigel, p. 3).” However, the dearth of confidence
that
Americans have is the very characteristic that keeps this nation
thriving. Murphy lucidly asserts: “More importantly, it is the
national American character that truly sets this civilization apart
from Rome…Roman’s elites were completely satisfied with their lot…
Americans would glare in disbelief at Rome’s self-satisfaction.
Americans see America as a work in progress (Murphy, p. 203).”
Weigel
neglected this critical difference; his critique shows his inability
to grasp the bigger picture.
Furthermore, Weigel begins to criticize about Murphy’s
“pessimism”
and that Murphy only “sees three bleak possible future for Pax
Americana (Weigel, p. 4).” Although it is true that Murphy draws out
depressing patterns and habits of the American government and grim
conclusions, he inevitably still shows hope that America will
persevere and leave an enduring legacy. Moreover, Murphy’s
perspective of this issue is everything but pessimistic. He delves
into several scenarios, objectively analyzes the case, and makes
several conclusions. His observations are clear and straightforward.
Chicago Tribune even praises his work as, “Lucid, learned, witty, and
thought-provoking…combination of morality play, cautionary tale, and
enlightened plea for the enduring values of civic virtue (Smett, p.
1).” Murphy’s intention is not to dampen the atmosphere but the
contrary: to inform the public and give hope to its readers.
I believe that Murphy is a knowledgeable author who speaks to
his
audience concisely. Giving a generous amount of information to the
similarities and differences between the Roman Empire and America, he
successfully illustrates his point across: Although America is
walking
a similar path as Rome, our society’s differences give us a sense of
hope and trust and a firm sense of direction and ambition. Weigel is
ill-informed and made several wrong errors in his critiques on Are We
Rome? He failed to understand the key concepts and his accusations
proved to be impractical.
References
Murphy, C. (2007). Are we Rome. United States of America:
First Mariner Books.
Smett, J. (2007). Book review: are we Rome? Retrieved
October 1, 2008, From Chicago Tribune Website:
http://times.com /2007/07/16/the-skim-6/.
Weigel, D. (2007, July 9). Quo vadimus? looking at Washington,
dreaming of Rome. Retrieved http://www.reason.com/
news/show/121274.html.

[o]

Week 6
We referred to the political spectrum. Ferguson, Colossus, and
Jeremiahs are moderate democrats. Kristol and Krauthammer are
republican conservatives. The APA citation site was www.dianhacker.com/resdoc/.
In APA, no underlining or quotation marks for books. In journals, for
class, we are supposed to write one thing we like, one thing we don’t
like, and one thing we don’t understand.
Due dates for e1.1, e1.2, and e1.3 and formats were listed.

Lever, M. (2007). Book review: religion of Rome. Retrieved
September
20, 2008,

from Mifflin Website: http://www.mifflin.org/blog/2007/religionofrome.html
There were specifics in this book review on the reasoning that Rome’s
unhealthy culture did not derive from carelessness towards religion.
Rome’s morality did not fall due to the absence of religious figures.

The Romans were very religious towards their gods as shown in huge
temples that the Romans made. Their traditional sacrifices to their
gods and devotion to praying to multiple gods were breathtaking in

commitment. I drew parallels with America because, like the many
gods
of Rome, there are diverse religions in America such as Judaism,

Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, or atheism.

Smett, J. (2007). Book review: are we Rome? Retrieved October 1,
2008, From Chicago Tribune Website: http://times.com/2007/07/16/the-skim-6/.

I was able to learn that although Murphy predicted a bleak future for
America, he eventually concludes and shows that America will
persevere
and leave an enduring legacy. Smett analyzed Murphy’s similarities
and differences between the Roman Empire and America. With this
source, I disproved the idea that Murphy’s book “Are We Rome?” was
pessimistic.

[o]

Week 7
Today we looked at Dreher’s book review topic: Are We Rome? And
listed
why Murphy doesn’t think America is going to fail. Professor
O’Connell
showed us the beltway is the freeway that encircles D.C. We learned
to
write essay 1.3, to go over the structure. The thesis and summary of
argument must be present. There must be point by point refutation.
Finally, there should be an alternate solution of what’s correct. The
class went over the APA citations. Noted that no cover page, was
needed, but an in-text citation was required. We also learned in
class
that an abstract of the research is a brief outline. An academic
research report consists of the review of literature, hypothesis,
experiment methodology, results, conclusions of the whole report, and
implications for future research.
Cheyette, F. (2007, July 1). Are We Rome: The fall of an empire and
the fate of
America. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/html.
A criticism I got here was that Murphy made informed generalizations
about both contemporary American and an empire that ended years ago.
Murphy’s book was quoted as erudite, but I am going to prove that it
was for the general public to understand. Murphy’s topics were also
seemingly limited, but he did range over topics as varied as U.S. and
Rome’s attitudes toward foreigners and immigrants, and divisions
between the rich and poor. Murphy does not show ignorance on
contemporary events in America as the author claimed in this source.
Isaacson, W. (2007, May 13). The empire in the mirror. New York
Times.
Retrieve
from http:// www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/Books/review/Isaacson/html
From this article, I learned that Murphy might overstretch the
similarities between Rome and America. I still formed my own opinion
though that Murphy chooses only a few areas where his comparisons are
most exacting and apparent. I found evidence that Murphy said that
parallels of Rome and America weren’t fixed in place, and that they
don’t point to an inescapable future. Isaacson gives an example that
Murphy compares Roman undercover operatives to the eavesdropping
programs of the National Security Agency. I wanted to refute what
Isaacson conceived to be a blatant stretch of the truth to be
intentional and humorous.

[o]

Week 8
Half of e1.3
In his May 13, 2007 article “The Empire in the Mirror,”
Walter
Isaacson incorrectly states that Murphy offers overstretched
analogies, treats America as if it were a society as distant as
ancient Rome, and writes in an overly erudite fashion. Murphy,
however, provides mostly important, basic comparisons of Rome and
America, mentions extensively about contemporary America, and
presents
his ideas in a simplified way. Isaacson’s criticisms shows that he is
not closely familiar with what Murphy wrote in his book Are We Rome?
Isaacson points out that Murphy overstretches the
similarities
between Rome and America. Yet, Murphy chooses only a few areas where
his comparisons are most exacting and apparent. He avoids overdrawing
his analogies when, instead of mentioning a thousand thesis points
about the difference between Rome and America, limits them to six.
His

six parallels in the view of self, military might, corruption, the

view of the world, permeable borders, and complexity were reasonable
and logical. He also mentioned that the “parallels aren’t fixed in

place, and they don’t point to an inescapable future. Taken as they
are, they trace a path that leads to foreseeable consequences- a path

that Rome has already been down (Murphy, 200, p. 6).” Isaacson gives

an example that Murphy compares Roman undercover operatives to the

eavesdropping programs of the National Security Agency as too drawn
out. Yet, it makes sense because Murphy’s underlying point is that
there was a loss of faith in the government because of these covert
actions (Cheyette, 2007, pg. 2). When Murphy mentions panegyrists
like
Midge Decter on Donald Rumsfeld, he tries to introduce humor which is
intentional, and not what Isaacson conceives it to be, a blatant
stretch of the truth (Cheyette, 2007, pg. 1).
Murphy isn't afraid to make informed generalizations about
both
contemporary America and an empire that ended years ago. Isaacson
believes that Murphy’s book is so erudite that it “occasionally felt
like something written from the aloof perch of the Boston Athenaeum
library (p. 1).” Murphy’s book was aimed for the general public to
understand (Cheyette, 2007, p. 2). Many of his points, such as his
analogy between the corrupt Roman patronage system to America’s
privatization of government services which symbolize a disregard of
public welfare due to private interest is easy to relate to and
understand. His lucid examples provide new details certainly for many
readers, but nevertheless are informative, and not so much erudite.
References
Cheyette, F. (2007, July 1). Are We Rome: The Fall of an Empire and
the Fate of America. Retrieved October 5, 2008, From Amherst Website:
http:// www.amherst.edu/72838.

Isaacson, W. (2007, May 13). The empire in the mirror. New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/
Books/review/Isaacson-t/html.

[o]

Week 9
Murphy, C. (2007). Are We Rome. United States of America: First
Mariner Books.
http://www.arewerome.com/reviews/ ForbesLife May 2007. Christopher
Buckley.
A succinct, short article, Christopher Buckley wrote a very
informative piece that emphasized the effectiveness of Are We Rome.
Clearly laying out several hauntingly similarities between America
and
Rome, such as the Mexico borderline and Hadrian’s Wall and the 53,000
mile long road system in Rome that is approximately the same as
America’s highway system, he makes it clear to the reader that
America
might be going on the same doomed path as the Roman Empire. However,
he also points out that there is much hope and that there are many
fundamental differences between the two nations that is capable of
preventing America from collapse. I like that this article is
concise and meaningful. The author’s tone is optimistic and
acknowledgeable as well.
Weigel, D. (2007, July 9). Quo Vadimus? Looking at Washington,
dreaming of
Rome. Retrieved http://www.reason.com/news/show/121274.html
This article efficiently draws the comparisons and contrasts of the
American and Roman Government. Focusing on the differences of the
time periods, Weigel mentions several modern politicians such as Al
Gore and Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and few of Rome’s governmental
terms to create a noticeable difference between the modern and the
ancient ages. He takes on a unique perspective by proving that the
United States’ government is following a parallel path to Rome.
However, his tone lightens towards the end, leaving the reader
hopeful
and reassured that America is nonetheless different from the Roman
Empire and more likely to strive on because of its dissimalities.
Personally, I think this article is a bit too subjective. It would
have been a stronger essay if he managed to give more factual
evidence
than the satire he uses to demonstrate his points.
Dreher, R. (2007). Are We Rome. From Dallas News.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/books/review/Isaacson-t.html?_r=2&o...
This Dallas News article is an analytical book review of the book,
Are
We Rome, written by Cullen Murphy. A novel that compares and
contrasts between the society of America and the nonexistent Roman
Empire, Are We Rome is a thought-provoking read. In this review,
columnist Rod Dreher delves into the details of the book and
scrutinizes Murphy’s writing style. Critiquing that Murphy was too
pessimistic and unsuccessful in forming cogent arguments supported by
evidence, he simultaneously praises Murphy’s extensive insight and
knowledge of the subject. Personally, I believe that Dreher did a
superb job in objectively analyzing the book and informing the reader
the general background and history of Rome. Furthermore, unlike the
other articles I have read before, he directly writes down the
similarities and differences between Rome and America in easily
readable bullet points and even proposes several ways the United
States can do to prevent itself from collapse. He wrote a very
persuasive article that would help me in organizing the pros and cons
of Are We Rome. He is definitely a reliable source that I know I
could
refer back to later on in my research.

[o]

Week 10
Professor O’ Connell taught the class how to research online. He
suggested we add the .edu. He also pointed out what mistakes the
class
was making by showing us several citations. He advised taking essay
2,
which was not so divided up as essay 1 into smaller jobs so that it
will be manageable. He noted that we must review congressional bills
on the website. He added we didn’t need to annotate references, but
gave recommendations that we do so. He gave a sample outline. Topics
of this example were corruption, military, and capitals. We were give
specific reasons and to add to our annotation as we learned more.
Additionally, the website was shown to us for further grading
rubrics-
www.snorko.org/e2sampleIntro.pdf. For the story part, the teacher
told
us several writings he encountered before. One was about a losing
presidential candidate watching T.V. on Election Day and thinking
“why
did I do that, why did I say this? I should have done this instead.”
Another one was on Guantanamo Bay, a boy met soldiers and
detainees.
I decided for the story I was going to write, it was going to be set
in the Roman era with characters Fulvia and Lucius Flavius.
To do:
- fictionalize the setting
- insert facts and main comparison I want between Rome and America
The following is for e2
Grabsky, P. (1997). I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire. Parkwest, NY:
BBC Books.
I found out by comparing the first five chapters of Murphy’s book to
Grabsky’s book, Murphy fails to make the obvious comparison with the
newly created American government which was formed almost precisely
the same lines- the President being the rotating king, the Congress,
the democracy, and the lifetime justices of the Supreme Court the
aristocracy. Murphy gave short shrifts to one of the most positive
similarities between the two societies, Rome and America- their
willingness to allow and assimilate new immigrants from far-flung
places. When Rome fell, the policy of limited entry resumed and
remained in place for at least 1,300 years until America opened its
doors. Although newcomers were badly treated and struggled for years
to gain an equal footing in their new homelands, in both cases it was
a revolutionary change.
Murphy, C. (2007). Are we Rome? The fall of an empire and the fate of
America. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.
I studied Murphy more in depth by comparing him to Grabsky. I noted
that Murphy devoted minimal space to the need for security and
secrecy
which a big thing in Rome, is becoming the same thing now in the
Untied States.

[o]

Week 11
There were many parts of the play Antony and Cleopatra we covered
today. Gutenburg had a library of literary works. We discussed essay
2
on how it was supposed to have a thesis relating to the theme of the
story and the topic related to the vehicle and opinion the tenor.
Vehicles were allowed to be symbolic. The tenor, I learned was the
author’s intended meaning. We went over more Roman history
afterwards.
Julius Caesar lived around 100BC-44BC, Mark Antony 83BC-30BC,
Cleopatra 69BC-30BC, and Octavius Augustus 63BC-14AD. The Triumvirate
of Rome during the play’s era was Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius.
Small
r republicans equaled politicians elected by the public. Big R
Republican was equal to the Republican party of the USA. Small d
democrat equaled power rested in the people and big D Democrat stood
for the Democratic party. We happened to cross on the topic of the
holocaust. Nazie blue star stood for gypsies, a yellow star for Jews,
and a pink star for homosexuals.
Patriot Act. (2001, October 26). USA patriot act. http://www.personalinfomediary.
com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.html.
The Patriot Act of October 26, 2001 has raised fears among millions
of
Americans by relaxing restrictions on unwarranted wiretaps, torture,
and imprisonment. In addition, to make it easier to keep track of
everybody, organizations such as internet services, cable TV
companies
and even public libraries are now required to report supposedly
suspicious actions to law enforcement agencies. Provisions are
scattered throughout the law that a person being investigated could
be
investigated, dragged off to jail, as some subsections of the laws
states.
Polybius. (1979). The rise of the Roman Empire (Ian Scott-Kilvert,
Trans). New
York: Penguin. (Original work published 2nd century b.c.).
Rome headed down the road from republic to empire. I was able to
relate material to my essay because both America and Rome were
envisioning their future. The three forms of government kingship,
aristocracy, and democracy are the highlights of Rome and its pre-
empire republican days for their consuls, chief executives, a
rotating
kingship, and the all-patrician senate being the aristocracy. The
admiration of this structure in Roman history was shown in Polybius’
discussions.

[o]

Week 12
Half draft of e2 analysis part
Cullen Murphy’s Are We Rome? (2007) is an entertaining but slender
book that often reads like a summary or treatment of what could or
should have been written instead about this extremely large and
complicated topic: the successes and failures of Ancient Rome and how
they apply to modern America, particularly in light of the many
similarities between the two. Even so, as a big believer in
comparative history – if it’s done right, if the book, class, seminar
or article delivers the goods – I found Murphy’s (2007) arguments
intriguing and often persuasive in terms of what’s there, in this
little volume. In other words, he does deliver – up to a point. The
trouble is that he treats so much either too briefly or not at all.
This paper, also very brief, deals only with the first of the book’s
five chapters.
There is little to dispute in Murphy’s (2007) assertion that both
nations saw themselves early on as destined for greatness – that is,
more specifically, to lead the world. Murphy (2007) sums it up best
and most simply in his choice of introductory quotations to the
book’s
first chapter: “‘Remember, Roman, that it is yours to lead other
people. It is your special gift,’” wrote the poet Virgil.
Similarly,
almost exactly two thousand years later, not long after leaving her
job as President Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright
declared: “‘We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see
further into the future’” (Murphy, 2007, 24).
However, in their respective developments the two societies were both
envisioning big things in their futures much sooner than that.
Murphy
(2007) duly notes Cicero’s praise for a government that is a mixture
of “‘three forms – kingship, aristocracy, and democracy’” (p. 37).
Rome in its pre empire republican days was arguably just that, the
consuls, or chief executives, comprising a rotating kingship, the
all-
patrician senate being the aristocracy and the various popular
assemblies the democracy. The point, however, is missed: that
Cicero’s notion came straight from the Greek historian Polybius’ much
lengthier discussion of this structure in his admiring Roman history
of two centuries earlier – which, incidentally, looks back in some
detail at the arrangement, even by then in existence for more than
three hundred years (Polybius, 2nd century B.C., 1979). Murphy
(2007)
also fails to make the obvious comparison with the newly-created
American government, which was formed along almost precisely the same
lines – the President being the rotating king, the Congress the

democracy, and the lifetime justices of the Supreme Court the

aristocracy. And since Murphy (2007) himself points out that all the
founders had classical educations, it would be hard to imagine this
similarity of design to be anything but deliberate.
In addition, Murphy (2007) unfortunately gives short shrift to one of
the most positive similarities between the two societies and how they
viewed themselves: the willingness – indeed, the eagerness – to allow
in and even assimilate new immigrants from far-flung places. Most of
the old city-states operated on the much different principle of
exclusion; their doors were closed to wannabe residents from
elsewhere. And when Rome fell, that policy of very limited entry
resumed and remained in place for 1,300 years until America opened
its
doors: suddenly, inclusion once again ruled the day. And although
then as now many newcomers were badly treated and struggled for years

to gain an equal footing in their new homelands, in both cases it was

a truly revolutionary change – which Murphy (2007) does not see fit
to
discuss.
Finally, in this area of self-image, the author does devote minimal
but emphatic space to the near-obsessive need for security and
secrecy
that became a bigger and bigger part of Roman life – and which is
doing the same thing right now in the United States (Murphy, 2007).
Indeed, by the time of Augustus in 31 B.C., the republic was dead and
gone, and one-man rule was the core of the system (Grabsky, 1997).
And by the late third century days of the emperor Diocletian, any
last
bits of transparency had long-since disappeared from the Roman
government. Here and now, in the wake of nine-eleven, the Patriot
Act
of October 26, 2001 (Murphy, 2007), has, among other things, raised

fears among millions of Americans by relaxing restrictions on

unwarranted wiretaps, torture and imprisonment. In addition, to make

it easier to keep track of everybody, organizations such as internet
services, cable TV companies and even public libraries are now
required to report supposedly suspicious actions to law enforcement

agencies. Most frightening of all, however, are the provisions
scattered throughout the law that essentially forbid anybody from
telling anybody else about anything they may have seen or heard that
indicates that a particular person is being investigated – or even
dragged off to jail, such as in Section 501, Subsection (d) of the
law, which states: “No person shall disclose to any other person
(other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things
under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation [or
various other agencies, depending on the target of the particular
section] has sought or obtained tangible things under this
section” (Patriot Act, 2001,
References

Grabsky, P. (1997). I, Caesar: Ruling the Roman Empire. Parkwest,
NY: BBC Books.

Murphy, C. (2007). Are we Rome? The fall of an empire and the fate
of America. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Patriot Act. (2001, October 26). USA Patriot Act.
http://www.personalinfomediary.com/USAPATRIOTACT_Text.htm.

Polybius. (1979). The rise of the Roman Empire (Ian Scott-Kilvert,

Trans.). New York: Penguin. (Original work published 2nd century
b.c.).

[o]

Week 13
Half draft of e2 story part
We – my wife, Fulvia, and I, Lucius Flavius – have just this minute
sat down to dinner in our suite of two bedrooms and a sitting room.
And though we are located one floor up toward the rear and facing the
inner courtyard of our large house on the Palatine, we can still hear
the sporadic angry shouts and fearful screams from outside. And now,
quite suddenly, just as my tongue touches my first bite of food, an
angry pounding begins at our shut and bolted front door.
“Pass the gravy, please,” I say, with slightly forced but resolute
calm..
“Don’t you think – ” Fulvia flinches at the pounding, suddenly
paralyzed – and of course who can blame her?
“The gravy, my dear,” I ask her again – refusing once more to give in
to the growing dread. Indeed, these days of darkness have been with
us for awhile now here in Rome – in fact, since the death of the
great
and beloved philosopher/emperor Marcus Aurelius a dozen years ago.
His son and successor, Commodus, was, to put it mildly, not his
equal. He brought back horrors not known since the vile Domitian a
century earlier, and lunatic rulers before him like Caligula and
Nero. Through these years, I have known of more than a few friends
and colleagues being hauled off in the night and never seen again.
But through it all, Fulvia and I have escaped the net, with our home,
our fortune and our lives intact. And indeed, we struggle to stay
hopeful, as we have come to see ourselves so differently, as a people
of gentility and civility and fairness and justice, that had long
since put aside the barbaric cruelties of the past. Yet now it is
hard not to doubt our future and for that matter Rome’s future, as
well. For a few months back, a squad of men from Commodus’ own
bodyguard, the Praetorian Guard – apparently fed up at last with his
excesses – murdered him as he bathed. Then, with a surprising show
of
wisdom, they asked the retired general, Pertinax, once Marcus’
military chief at the German front, to take the job. He agreed, but
soon proved too strict and stiff-necked for the soft life the guards
had become used to. So a few weeks later they killed him, too, then
audaciously held a public auction to sell – or rather rent – their
most prized possession: the power to bestow the job of emperor on a
man entirely of their choosing. Only one, a newly rich freedman
named
Didius Julianus, was idiotic enough to bid, and many potfuls of
golden
sesterces later, the man was formally installed.
Meanwhile, all this time – before, during and after the auction and
swearing-in – the guards have almost nightly rampaged through the
city, looting, pillaging, torturing and even murdering. Indeed, by
now it is hard to walk the streets without stepping in smears or
small
puddles of blood, and without having to step around or over human
remains. It is also, of course, a risky and frightening affair just
to walk from one district to the next – and all that is during
daylight. Being outdoors after dark is suicide.
So here we sit, my beloved Fulvia and I, on this hot and steamy Roman
summer night with every door and window shut and bolted, except those
here in our private suite that are open slightly to let in the breeze
– and unfortunately the sad sounds of terror from the street. And
now
the knock of horror has reached our very own home. Yet I insist upon
enjoying this final dinner – if that’s what it’s to be – and insist,
as well, that if we’re taken it will be from a place of dignity and
comfort.
Even so, the terrible pounding is relentless, and more than once when
coming precisely at the moment of swallowing, an especially strong
knock causes my throat to constrict and me to nearly choke on my
precious meal.
“Really, Lucius, shouldn’t we check, just to see who it is. It might
be – ”
“It can only be … them. Who else, hammering away like that? I’m
just
hoping they’ll finally decide there’s nobody home – and they’ll
stumble off to another house.”
Fulvia shakes her head, and her eyes begin to tear up; her voice is
shaky. I reach out and take her hand. “It will be all right,” I
say,
trying to sound reassuring. But the words come out hollow and
unconvincing.
“You can’t know that,” she answers softly, her voice still shaking.
More pounding, and more. A really horrible scream cuts through the
night. It is from a house or two away, or maybe the next street over
– it is hard to tell. Finally, I relent and invite Fulvia along to
make the short walk down the main hallway on this floor to a well-
camouflaged viewing spot to see if we can tell who’s there and what’s
going on. We proceed without fire of any kind to light the way, so
it
is slow going. Then, just as we are about to reach the spot, there
is
a scream of a much different kind – much louder and much more …
specific:
Anthony Birley’s outstanding Marcus Aurelius, a Biography (London:
Routledge, 2000)
Ron Burns’ historical mystery novel, Roman Nights (New York: St.
Martin’s Press, 1991).

[o]

Week 14
Nyden, P.J. (2007, October 26). Ex-marine top analyst calls for
humane foreign
policy. The Charleston Gazette, p. A-9.
Bush's two "National Security Strategy" plans, released in September
2002 and March 2006, re-asserted "pre-emptive military action as the
preferred strategy," a strategy Ritter believes "violates the
Constitution."
Shaw, G.B. (1928). Caesar and Cleopatra: A history. New York:
Penguin
Rome sees other societies as either free and with us or free and
against us. We try to make one-size fits all in terms of political,
social, and cultural systems. I drew similarities in America also.
Syme, R. (2002). The Roman revolution. New York: Oxford University
Press.
The goal is to use expansion as business for Rome and America. It is
a
business decision to invade other countries rather than a political
one. The foreign policy is very flawed.
America sees the rest of the world as a vast “other” filled with
peoples, movements and governments that are either free and with us,
or not free and against us – the latter being potentially dangerous
to
this nation’s vital interests. However, although these unfree are
worrisome as somehow mysterious and unknowable, American policy holds
that their alien sociocultural customs are in any case of little or
no
importance, because we have an obvious one-size-fits-all remedy that
is workable and effective for everybody everywhere (Murphy, 2007).
Our cure, according to author Cullen Murphy, in Chapter Five (The
Outsiders) of his Are We Rome? (2007), is plain enough: to make
everyone free by simply supplying those who aren’t free with the
tools
of American-style democracy. In other words, we want to make
everybody just like us.
Murphy (2007) declares that this is eerily similar in many respects
to
the policies pursued by Imperial Rome of two millennia ago, when non-
Romans were generally considered at best clever but misguided (like,
for example, Egyptians, Parthians and Greeks) and at worst barbaric
ignoramuses and simpletons (such as the warlike tribes of Germany and
Briton). All, however, were ripe for “Romanization,” their remaking
into peoples who could find prosperity and even fulfillment as part
of
the Roman way of life. Their punishment, their brutalization, were
not usually the goals. Neither was it to expand – not in and of
itself. Rather, the goal was, simply put, to use expansion as a way
of doing business: to bring more and more people into the Roman fold
and make them business and trading partners – and taxpayers, and thus
keep money flowing into Rome itself (Syme, 2002).
This paper will seek to illustrate and validate Murphy’s (2007)
comparison of ancient Rome and modern-day America in terms of their
views of the rest of the world, and to argue in support of Murphy’s
(2007) contention that America’s recent foreign policy approaches
have
been deeply flawed and may be leading us down the road to a Roman-
style disaster.

[o]

Week 15
Half draft of e3
Murphy (2007) argues that from the days of the Pilgrims, Americans
(or
the European settlers whose descendants would become Americans) have
seen themselves as special: special people in a special place with a
special destiny. Utopian strains of building a great “city on the
hill” ran through their earliest rhetoric, until by the 1830s the
visiting French writer Alexis de Tocqueville felt moved to give it a
special name: “‘Exceptionalism’” Tocqueville called it (Murphy, 2007,
p. 132).
Similarly, the old Romans saw themselves as better than anyone else,
and believed, as well, that they had beaten all rivals because of
some
holy sanction (Murphy, 2007). According to Murphy (2007), no less an
eminence than Cicero himself attributed Rome’s success to her
inimitable “‘piety, religion, and appreciation of the omnipotence of
the gods’” (Murphy, 2007, p. 136). At the same time, Romans held
sharply negative views of just about everybody: The native
inhabitants
of Iberia used urine to brush their teeth; Gauls were undisciplined
and lacked stamina; Syrians were born liars; Egyptians were
degenerates; Parthians were decadent and treacherous; Jews were
weird,
cliquish and of a lower order (Murphy, 2007).
Interestingly, George Bernard Shaw’s 1928 play Caesar and Cleopatra
is
fertile ground for demonstrating the low opinions each side – Roman
and Egyptian – had of the other. At one point, Caesar seems to
equate
Cleopatra’s status as Queen of Egypt with being “Queen of the
Gypsies,” a clearly intended insult (Shaw, 1928, p. 19). Then it is
her turn: Julius Caesar’s “father was a tiger and his mother a
burning
mountain; and his nose is like an elephant’s trunk,” she declares
(Shaw, 1928, p. 21). What’s more, she goes on, the Romans “all have
long noses, and ivory tusks, and little tails, and seven arms with a
hundred arrows in each, and they live on human flesh” (Shaw, 1928, p.
21).
At another point, a clear culture clash erupts at the Royal Egyptian
Court over the fact that Cleopatra and her little brother Ptolemy are
not only siblings but betrothed – as specified by Egyptian law.
“This
is not proper,” Caesar’s secretary, Brittanus, blurts out (Shaw,
1928,
p. 36). Caesar himself is plainly shocked by the revelation, but
makes no derogatory comments of his own. Depicted in this piece as a
master of strategic diplomacy, he instead goes so far as to
apologizes
on his secretary’s behalf: “Pardon him. … He is a barbarian
[Brittanus is, in fact, a Briton], and thinks that the customs of his
tribe and island are the laws of nature” (Shaw, 1928, p. 36).
References
Murphy, C. (2007). The outsiders: When people like us meet people
like them. In Are we Rome: The fall of an empire and the fate of
America (pp. 121-151). New York: Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin.
Shaw, G. B. (1928). Caesar and Cleopatra: A history. New York:
Penguin.