weeks 2--3 research and journal

[o]

Weeks 2—3 research and journal: reviews of Are we Rome? by Murphy,
creating annotated APA style references, using the online message
board group for the course, and discussing ideas with the class

Please work with a partner or two for this activity designed to assist
students’ understanding Murphy's text and preparing essay 1.

1) review pages 7, "Obviously, the emergence of America…" (or search
online at http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?textType=excerpt&titleNumber=694012)
to page 10, "…erosion of public spirit," Murphy's review of recent
literature comparing Rome and the USA;

2) search online for the following terms: book review Cullen Murphy
Are we Rome?

3) select one of the many reviews, reserve the review with the
instructor, read over the review and decide upon…
a) one point you like about the review or the book, by your analysis
of the review;

b) one point you don't like about the review or the book, by your
analysis of the review;

c) one point about the book that you don't understand from the review
and would like to check in the book or research for more information
on the topic;

4) check APA style for in-text citation and references page (of many
sites available, one is http://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/ ); see also
the following site on annotated references (http://
www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm). Note that
the examples on the syllabus are organized as in-text citations in APA
style; no References page is required for e1—cite your source in ¶3 in
the same style;

5) open the word processor and prepare an APA style reference for the
review followed by your notes from 3a, b, and c above; here’s an
example based on the reading for e1.1:
Hanson, V. 2007, May 28. Pop romanizing. National Review. [note: the
magazine title should be in italics, but italics don’t appear on the
message board]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_59/ai_n19311325/prin

a) one thing I like about this article is that all the way through
Hanson bitterly complains about Murphy’s book and scholarship, and at
least hints at discounting Murphy’s patriotism—until the very end;

b) one thing I don’t like about this article is that Hanson tries to
discount Murphy’s whole book by naming off all sorts of historical
Roman figures and claiming Murphy doesn’t really know much about Rome
when Murphy does discuss Rome quite extensively, but even more
important, Murphy didn’t write this book for Roman historians but for
the general public;

c) one thing I’d like to know more about is Roman history; Hanson
obviously knows plenty of names I don’t and would like to research more
—by the way, as stated in class, no one needs to know anything about
Roman history to take this class; it’s English 101, and that means
reading and writing, thesis and argument, research and composition,
documentation and presentation, but we have to read and write about
something, and a couple times each year I change the books around a
different theme; this time it’s comparing Rome and the USA; students
who read Julius Caesar in high school will have a step ahead, but in
the summer and so far this fall, it doesn’t seem as if that’s as
common an experience today as in years past;

6) join this Google group—for nickname, please use first name and
first initial of last name, for example, Cullen M, George S, or
William S—and post your annotated reference as a reply to this message
(it would be good for everyone to join and use the board, but in class
this week, one person can join and post for the 2 or 3 classmates);

7) present your ideas to the class.

[Joy.c]

Heffernam, T. (2007, May 9). Are we Rome? Esquire. Retrieved from
http://www.esquire.com/fiction/book-review/rome0507?src=stumbleupon

A) One thing I like about this article is that Heffernam reinforces
Murphy’s overall opinion in Are We Rome by adding his own insight.
Heffernam writes, “For a superpower to defend its interests, it has to
succeed everywhere; for a smaller enemy to advance its own, it can
succeed anywhere”. Heffernam writes in the same style as Murphy and
it is easy to digest and understand.

B) The article by Heffernam is a strong and complimentary book review
that also has a tongue in cheek attitude through a smart tone.
Heffernam says that where as the Roman’s “Didn’t welcome outsiders”,
of all comparisons, this is not one that can be made. The US
government openly welcome people into the country and the outside view
is one of being welcoming. However, the infrastructure and political
stances of many contradict this mask, and Heffernam points this out in
a cheeky way by saying, “Whatever the similarities between them and
us, this isn't one of them. At least not all of us. Yet”. Like
Murphy, Heffernam isn’t afraid to pick faults with the US. I like his
style of doing so.

C) One thing that I would like to know more about is Eisenhower.
Heffernam references Eisenhower’s “Military-industrial complex”. I
have a background in European history and politics and so would like
to know more about the US history so I can have a better point of
reference.

On Sep 13, 7:19 am, o <eng101l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Weeks 2—3 research and journal: reviews of Are we Rome? by Murphy,
> creating annotated APA style references, using the online message
> board group for the course, and discussing ideas with the class
>
> Please work with a partner or two for this activity designed to assist
> students’ understanding Murphy's text and preparing essay 1.
>
> 1) review pages 7, "Obviously, the emergence of America…" (or search

> online athttp://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?textType=...)

> to page 10, "…erosion of public spirit," Murphy's review of recent
> literature comparing Rome and the USA;
>
> 2) search online for the following terms: book review Cullen Murphy
> Are we Rome?
>
> 3) select one of the many reviews, reserve the review with the
> instructor, read over the review and decide upon…
> a) one point you like about the review or the book, by your analysis
> of the review;
>
> b) one point you don't like about the review or the book, by your
> analysis of the review;
>
> c) one point about the book that you don't understand from the review
> and would like to check in the book or research for more information
> on the topic;
>
> 4) check APA style for in-text citation and references page (of many

> sites available, one ishttp://www.dianahacker.com/resdoc/); see also
> the following site on annotated references (http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm). Note that

[Minor T]

Walsh, P.J. (2007, July 14). Some roads, but not all, lead to Rome.
The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/07/14/some_roads_but_not_all_lead_to_rome.

(a) one thing that I liked about the article is that Walsh was clear
upon his points that Murphy’s was able to provide evidence that proves
his points but then is able to find an error in Murphy’s book and
supports his opinion with evidence.

(b) one thing I did not like about the article is that Walsh used too
many quotations to support his thesis so therefore it seems as if he
is not too confident with what he is saying and the major problem
being that he only used quotes from Murphy’s Are We Rome? Instead of
other outside sources.

(c) I one point I don’t understand from the review is why Walsh chose
to end his article with the following quote, "Catholic or Protestant,
the believing writer is equally unhappy. He feels like Lancelot in
search of the Holy Grail who finds himself at the end of his quest at
a Tupperware party." Nothing about religion had been mentioned before
and it suddenly just appeared out of thin air. So he probably could
have been more detailed in his description of the religious aspect of
the article.

[Adrienne]

Hefferman, T, (2007, May 9). Are we Rome? Esquire. Retrieved from
http://www.esquire.com/fiction/book-review/p04_c09_s1.html#1

Murphy, C (2003). Are we Rome?

One thing I like about the article is the statement the statement the
author made regarding the success of a nation, “For a superpower to

defend its interests, it has to succeed everywhere; for a smaller

enemy to advance its own, it can succeed anywhere.” This idea shows
what is necessary in order for a powerful nation to maintain its
strength, while revealing how a smaller nation can get started on the
path to power.

Another point about the review is when the author stated, “Certain
that they were fated to eternal earthly success, the Romans didn't
welcome outsiders -- and didn't notice that the outsiders had outpaced
them until it was too late. Whatever the similarities between them and
us, this isn't one of them. At least not all of us. Yet.” I like how
the points out that America, like the Roman Empire has a false sense
of security regarding its destiny and could, like the Romans, end up
in extinction.

One point about the book that I don't understand from the review

and would like to check in the book or research for more information

on the topic is Hefferman’s reference to Eisenhower: “Rome sought ever-
increasing military might, a goal that emptied the treasuries and led
military affairs to define the purpose of the Roman government --
exactly what Eisenhower was talking about when he warned of the
military-industrial complex.” Since I don’t know much about Eisenhower
and his administration, I would need to study and research to capture
the meaning of Hefferman’s reference.

[Deborah M]

Nye, Jr. J.S. (2007, July 1). All hail America? Washington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062901893.html


a) one thing I like about this article is that it offers an
explanation as to why we have become who we are based on our roots and
how our own founding “myth” and desire to create a new world has led
to self-deception.

b) one thing I don’t like about this article is that it compares and
reviews three different books. They all sound very interesting but I
would have liked a more thorough review about Murphy’s book since the
title only references “Are We Rome?”

c) one thing I’d like to know more about is the effect of the Age of
Enlightenment upon our Founding Fathers. As this review points out,
the philosophical movement of the 18th Century has had a great
influence on our history and continues to be referenced and used for
current political decision making.

[o]

Axel D
In Class Review
Hanson, V. 2007, May 27, Pop Romanizing National Review.
One thing that I like about Hanson review is that he refutes Murphy’s
arguments in a very optimistic and more realistic way.
One thing that I don’t like about this review is that is approached
from a military point of view.
One thing I would like to know is the government point of view
regarding this topic.

[o]

Lillian C
One thing I like about this article is the way Folami agrees with
Murphy's parallels of privatization
and the way the U.S. has.
The thing I dislike about her article is that she agrees with Murphy
but does not give an opinion on how she feels the U.S. can fix its
flaws.
The part I did not understand from her article was the comparison of
the non-romans and the Black person in the presidential race.
Folami,A.2008,Feb17.The Black House[review of the book Are we Rome?]

[o]

sko

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
a) One thing I liked about this review was Isaacson’s writing style.
His description that “Rome and America were both blessed and
afflicted
with a sense of exceptionalism (p. 1),” was both ironical and
humorous. He continued on that the problem with Rome was that it
became too “fat, flabby, and unwieldy (Isaacson, p. 1).” These vivid
words represented a concise summary on the fall of Rome in a light
manner; it created the image of Rome as if it was a person.
b) One thing I disliked about Isaacson’s article was that he
mentioned
that Murphy’s book was so erudite that it “occasionally felt like
something written from the aloof perch of the Boston Athenaeum
library
(p. 1)” and that his argument failed to be fully convincing. Murphy
admitted that there were hundreds of comparisons that can be made
between Rome and America, but chose the most important, obvious
examples. His book was aimed at the general public to understand and
for people who also never read about Roman history. Murphy’s supports
were strong as he incorporated extensive research on contemporary
Washington as well as ancient Rome.
c) One thing I’d like to know more about is the elite of Rome and
their connection with the emperor. Isaacson mentioned that the
connected elite were constantly asking the emperor for favors, but it
was ambiguous whether they were on favorable terms or not; Roman
history is so dramatic with rebellions and overthrowing of the
government by elites.

[o]

Sonia E
Angelica J
Research Journal
Comstock, P. (2007, Jun 27). A talk with Cullen Murphy. California
Literacy Review, retrieved from http://calitreview.com/231
One thing we liked about the article was that both states shared the
same problems, which is man power.
One thing we disagree with the article is how the legislation is
taking too long to grant citizenship for those solders serving in the
military. It’s not right, if they are promised to obtain their
citizenship and not obtaining it till they are dead.
We would like to learn more about the fairness of the society.

[o]

Yolanda D
Noel Malcolm (2008, September 3) Is America the new Rome?
Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/arts/2008/03/09/bomur109.xml
a) One thing I like about this writers opinion, and argument that
he
pointed out. Thus refocusing on who America ‘the empire”? Really is.
And reclaiming that it is the United States of America, with its own
constitution; democratic politics within that state can alter the
policies of the state. Noel Malcolm states an empire beyond the
borders on which America currently enjoys. But suggest that Rome’s
was
rather different from the empire within the borders of Ancient Rome.
b) The one point I do not like is the comment Noel Malcolm
makes,
about southern California, how he suggest that the barbarian tribe
comparison, might be used as a warning to the US in allowing to
become, a Spanish-speaking enclave. Yes there are a high percentage
of
Spanish-speaking citizens, but I do not look at as a treat to
America.
c) A point that I do not understand is when he mentions
privatisation,
the Visigoths and Ostrogoths of the late Roman Empire, he suggest
that
these are the giant corporations such as Halliburton, and are taking
over key government services. I would like more information on this
particular topic.

[o]

Gary K.
Oct 2, 4:20 pm

Mitha, G. Asgar (2008, July 10) The cancer of corruption.
Counter Currents.org. Retrieved from http://www.countercurrents.org/mitha100708.htm

(a) Mitha does a great job in creatively conveying how corruption has
festered within western government structure through bureaucracies
that support unethical and uncivil practices by eastern dictators. I
really appreciate his candid descriptions of how legislation is
manipulated for capital gain by bureaucratic leaders in the U.S. and
other western powers.

(b) I think that Mitha's statement "corruption only exists in the
most
influential government, political, and business echelons" is highly
questionable. In my opinion there is no business that hasn't at one
time or another had to deal with unethical of unlawful practices by
individuals within its structure. the same goes for government and
political circles. So to say that this behavior is "only" exhibited
in
higher echelons is either a biased of uninformed opinion.

(c) After reading this article, I find myself very interested in
wanting to learn more about foreign leaders, particularly those
foreign leaders who are actively participating in any type or foreign
exchange or international trade with the U.S.

[Dong O]

Isaacson, W. (2007, May 13) The empire in the mirror. The New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/books/review/Isaacson-t.html

a) One point I like about the review of the book is that as the review
go through Murphy’s book, it adds additional information to enrich and
back up Murphy’s points of views instead of just providing mere
comments on Murphy’s book.
b) One thing that I feel lacked in the review is that it solely
focuses on praising Murphy’s book that it fails to provide any
criticism on the book. (The review even uses a word ‘Laudably’ to
Murphy’s optimistic prescription for the U.S.) If the review provided
some critiques, it would have enriched.

c) One thing that I’d like to know more about is the Roman historian
Livy. Though I have some background knowledge on Rome, his name is
still unfamiliar. If I were informed of his works, background, etc, it
would have been much more helpful to understand the whole review.

[MG]

Marsella G
McLemme, S (2007, May 13) Are we Rome? The Huffington Post.
Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mcle­mee/are-we-rome_b_48385.html

a) One thing I like about the review is how the authos mentions how
the US developed by following other cultures. Our own founding
fathers followed latin literature when they began to establish laws
here. He mentions there isnt much new from his writing to others who
have writen about similiar comparisons.
b) One thing I didnt care about the article was his final statement.
He closes by not giving his thoughts on wether the US will fall like
Rome. I would like to know what his thoughts were.
c) Would like to find out what the author means by "'lesser breed
without the law". Not quite sure what he means by this.