weeks 2, 3, and 4 journal critique

[Sunggi J]

Journal Critique of: 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....

a) I admire Mr. Minor T’s approach by being straight to the point and
not wasting time trying to impress. His insight provides only what he
believes necessary to provide information that is required and not go
beyond that. Reading his journal is quite easy and does not require
any real in-depth analysis.

b) What I did not comprehend was how Mr. Minor T contradicts himself
when he first states that he enjoys that “Walsh was clear upon his
points that Murphy’s was able to provide evidence that proves his
points” however then Mr. Minor T turns around and says 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”. So which is it,
are you satisfied with his style or not?

c) Perhaps Mr. Minor T’s question about the significance of the
religious parallel should be explained to not only him but all of us
so that we may get more out of the information provided. Perhaps Mr.
Minor T should have helped us all and done the research to so that we
may all benefit from his discoveries.

[o]

Journal Critique of:
Yolanda D
Sec-0459-Sat.
October 9, 2008
Journal
a) Ms. Yolanda D. does a great job of adopting a tone of
everyday
conversation when expressing herself. I find this interesting and
unique since I have not seen this before.
b) Ms. Yolanda D. made a few grammar mistakes which I had
learned
should have been corrected. However, I do not really think this
distracts from her mains arguments and points.
c) Ms. Yolanda D could have provided a bit more analysis on her
arguments and then further developed them. Other than that she did
what was required. A good job.

[o]

Sunggi J
View profile
More options Dec 19, 10:14 pm
Ruddin, L. 2007, May 28 Lee P. Ruddin: Review of Cullen Murphy’s Are
We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America (Houghton
Mifflin, 2007) HNN.us
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/39401.html
a) The first thing that struck me about this article is how Mr.
Ruddin
liked to play around with words and create an almost lyrical effect
on
he review. What I found great about the review is that Mr. Ruddin
clarified a lot of what took Murphy pages to flesh out. Also, Mr.
Ruddin added additional information that helped me get a different
view from Murphy’s information.
b) Although I had said that I enjoyed the article’s word play, I
believe that Mr. Ruddin should not be so liberal with it in the
article. Sometimes, although interesting, the word play can just seem
like a pile of meaningless chatter that could go unsaid.
c) Mr. Ruddin could have added a bit more additional examples
other
than what e had already provided in order to further impact his
arguments and add depth to the article.

[o]

Sunggi J
View profile
More options Dec 19, 10:15 pm
Bush, G. W. 2003, June 26. Statement by the President. The
whitehouse.gov.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030626-3.html
a) The rhetoric of the speech is great. I ask myself who wrote
Mr.
Bush’s speech and was he fired once the speech was given in order to
find a speech writer that could rationalize torture and get
themselves
out of this rhetoric.
b) I cannot imagine how President Bush gave this speech and
turned
around and allowed Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo detention centers. How
much do souls go for these days? Well, I cannot stomach the hypocrisy
here, it is pretty disgusting.
c) No additional information is needed to prove that torture
should
not be allowed, it is not likely that President Bush would read or
comprehend. Neither would it enlighten those that approve of such
tactics as those found in the prison detention centers.

[o]

Sunggi J
View profile
More options Dec 19, 10:28 pm
Field Trip Report
Pasadena Campaign Volunteering
2008 November 1
a) Since I am from Korea, I was not really sure how useful this
volunteering would be. However, I really liked the experience since
it
helped me further understand the election process of the United
States. I enjoyed talking to some people who were nice, it did not
matter if they voted for Senator McCain, they were still nice to me.
See Pasadena was also a treat to see the beautiful neighborhoods and
the people that live there.
b) I had a hard time with people that were rude. I tried my best
to be
nice and respectful to all people but rude people did not care and
shout at me and threatened to call the police if I did not get out of
their property. I also had a hard time with people who did not care
about anything I had to say to them.
c) I certainly would have enjoyed if we were given additional
information in regards to Senator Obama so that when I spoke to
people
I would be able to be clearer and be able to at least open their view
to the possibility of them voting for Senator Obama. Also, if I could
have had statistics, I could have at least shown them with numbers
how
Senator Obama could be a better choice for the office of President of
the United States.

[o]

Sunggi J
View profile
More options Dec 19, 10:16 pm
Royalty.nu. copyright 1998. Cleopatra. www.royalty.nu.
http://www.royalty.nu/Africa/Egypt/Cleopatra.html
a) I really enjoyed the additional information that was covered
in
this website. The information gave me a different view of the queen
of
Egypt that had seduced Antony and enslaved his will. Also, Antony is
given a different light as a man that was conflicted by different
things other than a man that easily gave into his lust and desires.
b) What is not made clear is where exactly the information
provided
comes from. Although many other additional sources are provided for
further reading, the website leaves the reader to assume the sources
of information either comes form all the books or from some, or from
none of the books.
c) Additional information is not required since the website lists
off
a myriad of books from which to quench one’s thirst for knowledge.

[o]

Running Head: G.W. Caesar
G.W. Caesar, analysis of a character from America and Cleopatra
Sung Gi Jang
November 22, 2008
English 101
Professor McDonnell
Los Angeles City College
Abstract
The timeless tale of Antony and Cleopatra, by William
Shakespeare,
has enjoyed appeal and has been used to analyze the dynamics of
leadership, relationships, and the bond between man and country,
among
others. However, of particular interest is the relationship between a
sovereign nation and the rest of the world, such as that between Rome
and Egypt. Can a nation exist without respecting, or having
consideration of, other nations? Is it truly beneficial to foster
amicable alliances with others? Recently, this topic has become of
special interest as one examines the current government
administration
and asks these same questions. Did the current administration seek to
maintain the relations with her allies or did she ostracize them?
G.W.
Bush and his administration will be compared to that of Octavius
Caesar, his triumvirs and the Roman Empire, to search for possible
clarity into Bush’s legacy of either diplomacy, or alienation.
Throughout the ages, people have used many vehicles in which
to
provide order to, and control over, their society; religion,
education, and monarchy are but a few forms which can still be seen
today. The United States of America has been described by many forms
of governments such as socio-democratic, republic, and even
capitalist. Terms have been applied according to the given
administration running the country and the characteristics exhibited
by it. Today, it is seen as an imperial-capitalist nation drunk with
ethno-centricity, arrogance and greed. Under the current
administration, the United States is no longer considered part of the
United Nations, the sovereignty of the Iraqi government was
supplanted
by another administration created by the United States, and the
United
States has grown in intolerance towards others by creating biases
towards individuals from middle-eastern descent. The person to whom
all can be traced to is the current president of the United States,
George Walker Bush, or “G.W.” In order to provide a comparison to
G.W.
and his administration’s view, and relations, with the rest of the
nations, the character of Octavius Caesar, along with the other two
triumvirs and Rome from William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra,
will be analyzed from Cullen Murphy’s Are we Rome? The fall of an
Empire and the Fate of America. It is crucial for a nation to avoid
projecting an arrogant mindset and avoid fostering resentment from
other nations and peoples.
Upon its inception during World War II, January 1, 1942, the
United
Nations served as a vehicle for international, multi-lateral
cooperation. Its first goal was to unite nations in order to fight of
the axis of power that threatened to consume the planet. In current
times, the United Nations serves in a peace-keeping and humanitarian
safe-guarding capacity for all nations. Prior to the current
administration, the United States maintained a central role in the
United Nations, often offering assistance, as well as seeking it. The
United Nations and the United States co-existed well until the
catastrophe in 2001. At first, it was stated that the United States
investigated the atrocities back to a group called Al Qaeda. The
group, headed by an individual called Osama Bin Laden, was said to be
based in Afghanistan. After the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
however “The United States responded to the attacks by launching a
War
on Terrorism, invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban.” (Wikipedia
2008) Initially, the United States engaged Afghanistan unilaterally
looking for the terrorist group in order to bring them to justice;
however, as time went on the original target of Osama Bin Laden was
soon ignored for the nation of Iraq. In order to justify engaging
Iraq, the current government administration prepared a report stating
that Iraq and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, were attempting to build
a
nuclear program. “Despite these efforts to sway public opinion, the
invasion of Iraq was seen by some including Kofi Annan…as a violation
of international law… especially since the U.S. failed to secure U.N.
support for an invasion of Iraq.” (Wikipedia 2008) The United States
was adamant about its findings through satellite imagery, refusing to
allow any one nation, let alone an individual or global entity such
as
the United Nations, refute their statement and further proclaimed
that
a nuclear threat would be imminent if Iraq would continue to go
unchecked. The United Nations however, opposed a military campaign
stating that the nation of Iraq was too impoverished, by sanctions
placed on it, to have a proliferation program, let alone be a threat
to any nation, region or the United States. Nevertheless, the United
States invaded Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. This
act served to alienate the United Nations because of the arrogance of
the American uni-lateral invasion.
Rome “...pictured itself as all-important, all-knowing, all-
powerful.” (Murphy 2007), the United States, who likewise had a
similar grandiose view of itself, disregarded the United Nations and
its sovereignty. The United States became frustrated since it
believed, as Antony believed, that “Kingdoms are clay; our dungy
earth
alike.” (Bevington, 1988), the United States believed, as Antony,
that
they may shape politics, even reality, as they wished. When they made
their case in front of the United Nations, they simply assumed that
the United Nations would coalesce to American whims and unanimously
agree to invade the nation of Iraq. Caesar eloquently states that “It
has been taught us from the primal state that he which is was wished
until he were…” (Bevington, 1988), in other words Caesar was
sagacious
enough to understand the role of persistence, arrogance and blind
pride, not only in leaders but also in nations. Octavius knew that
one
may over-estimate one’s ability and reach, which further aggravated
by
tenacity, in turn may lead to unanticipated results or avoidable
errors. Once the United States saw that the United Nations would not
bend to its desires, America simply turned its back on the United
Nations, refusing participation and acknowledgement of the global
entity. The severance between America and the United Nations has had
detrimental repercussions on the United States; many American
soldiers
have lost their lives in the Middle East and continue to, to this
day.
President Bush preferred to have his way regardless of the
consequences, while Caesar acknowledged the need for humility and
restraint.
After invading Iraq, the American military, along with some
troops
from the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Poland and hired
mercenaries, took over Iraq in a timeframe spanning March 20th to May
1st, 2003. Civil wars and faction fighting began to erupt all over
Iraq as Sunnis and Shi’ites vied for control of the nation that they
perceived as up for grabs, “What's driving the problem…the fact that
this particular government is dominated by Sunnis and not even all
Sunnis, but Sunnis of a particular group and class, and it has
excluded Shiis from major decision-making positions.” (Abernethy
2003). In response to the danger, the United States began to set up a
democratic government to administer to the people of Iraq. However,
the quarreling between factions did not cease, nor were there any
signs of it being mitigated. The Iraqi people went as far as claiming
that the newly implemented democratic government was simply the
United
States affront for government puppets that would simply pursue
American interest over those of the Iraqi people. Soon officials, who
had been elected, were now being targeted by terrorist groups within
Iraq. Although they were heavily guarded, many officials were being
killed. In response to this, the United States began to hire and
train
Iraqi forces that would be able to act as law enforcement officials.
Although, as of yet, they have not shown to be particularly effective
or efficient. The problem that has arisen from the invasion can be
traced to America’s lack of humility or political fore-sight, as
Murphy explains that how the United States carries itself, and is
perceived, is “…as important as objective factors like strength of an
economy and the size of an army. Smugness or indifference can prove
catastrophic.” (Murphy, 2007) Present day Iraq is plenty evidence of
this. Octavius Caesar was wise enough to bear this in mind as he
proclaims “…we rate boys who, being mature in knowledge, pawn their
experience to their present pleasure and so rebel to
judgment.” (Bevington, 1988) President Bush was quick to “pawn” the
United Nations (UN) and the respect of the United States for the
“present pleasure” of invading Iraq sans the consent, or aid, of the
UN despite best efforts to cast a shadow of malevolence on the Iraqi
nation. On the other hand, Octavius Caesar did not immediately head
to
Egypt without aide from his allies in search for Antony, being wiser
in conduct and judgment. Instead, he gathered his military strength
in
order to provide himself with not only the element of superior
numbers
and firepower, but tactical superiority. President Bush was only too
happy to invade Iraq regardless of opposition from the United Nations
or its allies.
Pre-September 11, 2001, the United States had a sizable
population of
middle-eastern descent people. They were not noticed or suspected; in
fact a lot of middle-eastern descent students would arrive with
student visas in order to attend many universities in the United
States. After graduation, the majority would apply for citizenship
and
procure employment in the United States, some as engineers,
architects, doctors, and a myriad of other professions. After the
events that transpired in New York in September of 2001, anyone of
middle-eastern descent was now a suspect. Anyone that seemed as if
they were from India, any of the middle-east nations, or vaguely
resembling any physical characteristic stereotyped to a terrorist was
harassed and accused of involvement with terrorist activities. The
Patriot Act was conceived on October 21, 2001, which gave greater
authority to government agencies in order to combat terrorists within
and outside of American soil. Now, telephone lines were wired at
will,
all in the name of security. Along with this a special internment
camp
was created in Guantanamo, Cuba in which alleged terrorists were
detained and interrogated by the United States agents. Allegations of
torture soon began to surface and an investigation ensued. Notes from
the Vice President of the United States and the secretary of State to
the interrogators fueled suspicion and disapproval towards the
treatment of those interned under suspicion in the camp. This form of
prejudice fueled persecution was mirrored by Rome after the
staggering
loss during the Teutoburg skirmish to German forces by P. Quinctilius
and the XVII, XVII and XIX legions of the Roman Empire. “For decades
German auxiliaries had served as loyal soldiers in Rome’s armies.
Now,
suddenly, they were viewed with suspicion.” (Murphy, 2007) Serving to
further exacerbate relations between Romans and Germans, soldiers
were
dispatched “…into neighborhoods of Rome where German immigrants
lived.
He [Augustus Caesar] gave emergency powers to governors in far-flung
provinces.” (Murphy, 2007) Rome’s inability to understand or respect
other nations fostered great arrogance not only in its Caesars, but
in
all Romans. Antony further perpetuates this paradigm as he flatters
Octavius Caesar, “The third o’ the world is yours, which with a
snaffle you may pace easy…” (Bevington, 1988) It becomes apparent
that
Octavius Caesar is quite arrogant in his view of himself and his
family as he announces that “The wife of Antony should have an army
for an usher…” (Bevington, 1988) It just so happens that at the time
in which he had said this Antony’s wife was Octavia, Octavius
Caesar’s
sister. This arrogance also is manifested in the President of the
United States as he flew into a navy carrier with a banner proudly
displaying the words “Mission Accomplished” while there was a
mounting
death toll of American soldiers in Iraq; and arrogance from those in
his administration as one official stated, “We’re an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality.” (Murphy, 2007) Both
President
Bush and Octavius Caesar were not in short supply of pride and self-
esteem, or prejudice.
The United States has survived two world wars, but it seems
that it
is struggling against its worst enemy, itself. It has been said that
pride precedes the fall; certainly it was the case with the Roman
Empire. This has yet to be completely the case with America. As with
Rome, the United States is ethno-centric, arrogant, and refuses to
acknowledge the ability of others; like Octavius Caesar, President
Bush believes he may shape the world to his whim and not suffer the
consequences of this arrogance. Like Octavius, President Bush faces
adversary from his people and leaders, and like Rome, America too
spread out to be able to administer properly to all its territories,
as Murphy points out that “Americans have a very long tail, and the
Romans did too - a significant encumbrance in a guerilla war or an
insurgency.” (Murphy, 2007)
References
Abernethy, B.(Executive Editor and Host). (2003, April 4). Episode
631
[Television series episode]. In INTERVIEW: Dr. Phebe Marr. New York:
Thirteen/WNET New York.
Murphy, C. (2007). Are We Rome? The fall of an Empire and the fate of
America. New York, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rationale for Iraq War. (2008). Rationale for Iraq War. In Wikipedia
[Web]. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Criticisms_of...
September 11 attacks. (2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack.
In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved December 12, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack
Shakespeare, W. and Bevington, David (Ed.). (1988). Antony and
Cleopatra. New York, New York: Bantam Books.

[o]

changs...@hanmail.net
View profile
More options Dec 18, 9:55 pm

nations, the character of Octavius Caesar, along with the rest of the
triumvirs, and Rome, from William Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra,
will be utilized, along with analysis from Cullen Murphy’s Are we

Rome? The fall of an Empire and the Fate of America. It is crucial
for

a nation to avoid an arrogant mindset, along with fostering

resentment
from other nations and peoples.
Upon its inception during World War II, January 1, 1942, the
United
Nations served as a vehicle for international, multi-lateral
cooperation. Its first goal was to unite nations in order to fight of
the axis of power that threatened to consume the planet. In current
times, the United Nations serves in a peace-keeping and humanitarian
safe-guarding capacity for all nations. Prior to the current
administration, the United States maintained a central role in the
United Nations, often offering assistance, as well as seeking it.

However, after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the United
States embarked on a mission to seek justice for the horrific
happenings of that day. At first, it was stated that the United
States
had been able to trace the homicidal act to a group called Al Qaeda.

The group, headed by an individual called Osama Bin Laden, was said
to

be based in Afghanistan. Initially, the United States engaged

Afghanistan unilaterally looking for the terrorist group in order to
bring them to justice; however, as time went on the original target
of
Osama Bin Laden was soon ignored for the nation of Iraq. In order to
justify engaging Iraq, the current government administration prepared
a report stating that Iraq and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, were

attempting to proliferate. The United States was adamant about its

findings through satellite imagery, refusing to allow any one nation,
let alone an individual or global entity such as the United Nations,

refute their statement and further exclaiming that a nuclear threat
would be imminent if Iraq would continue to go unchecked. However,
the
United Nations opposed a military campaign stating that the nation of

Iraq was too impoverished, by sanctions placed on it, to have a
proliferation program, let alone be a threat to any nation, region or
the United States. Nevertheless, the United States invaded Iraq
without the approval of the United Nations. This act served to
alienate the United Nations because of the arrogance of the American

uni-lateral invasion. As with Rome who “...pictured itself as all-

important, all-knowing, all-powerful.” (Murphy 2007), the United

States disregarded the United Nations and its sovereignty. The

United
States became frustrated since it believed, as Antony believed, that

“Kingdoms are clay; our dungy earth alike.” (Bevington, 1988) Caesar

eloquently states that “It has been taught us from the primal state

that he which is was wished until he were…” (Bevington, 1988) Caesar
was sagacious enough to understand the role of arrogance, not only in

leaders but also in nations. Octavius knew that one may over-estimate

one’s ability and reach, which in turn may lead to unanticipated

results or avoidable errors. Once the United States saw that the

United Nations would not bend to its paradigm, America simply turned

its back on the United Nations, refusing participation and
acknowledgement of the global entity. The severance between America
and the United Nations has had detrimental repercussions on the
United
States; many American soldiers have lost their lives in the Middle
East and continue to, to this day. President Bush preferred to have
his way regardless of the consequences, while Caesar acknowledged the
need for humility and restraint.
After invading Iraq, the American military, along with some
troops
from the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Poland and hired
mercenaries, took over Iraq in a timeframe spanning March 20th to May
1st, 2003. Civil wars and faction fighting began to erupt all over

Iraq as Sunnis and Shiites vied for control of the nation that they
perceived as up for grabs. In response to the danger, the United

States began to set up a democratic government to administer to the
people of Iraq. However, the quarreling between factions did not
cease, nor were there any signs of it being mitigated. The Iraqi
people went as far as claiming that the newly implemented democratic
government was simply the United States affront for government
puppets
that would simply pursue American interest over those of the Iraqi
people. Soon officials, who had been elected, were now being targeted
by terrorist groups within Iraq. Although they were heavily guarded,
many officials were being killed. In response to this, the United
States began to hire and train Iraqi forces that would be able to act
as law enforcement officials. Although, as of yet, they have not
shown
to be particularly effective or efficient. The problem that has
arisen
from the invasion can be traced to America’s lack of humility or
political fore-sight, as Murphy explains that how the United States
carries itself, and is perceived, is “…as important as objective
factors like strength of an economy and the size of an army. Smugness
or indifference can prove catastrophic.” (Murphy, 2007) Present day
Iraq is plenty evidence of this. Octavius Caesar was wise enough to
bear this in mind as he proclaims “…we rate boys who, being mature in
knowledge, pawn their experience to their present pleasure and so
rebel to judgment.” (Bevington, 1988) President Bush was quick to

“pawn” the United Nations and the respect of the United States for
“present pleasure”, while Octavius Caesar did not immediately head to
Egypt without aide from his allies in search for Antony. President

Bevington, David (Ed.). (1988). Antony and Cleopatra. New York, New
York: Bantam Books.

[o]

ang, Sung Gi
November 08, 2008
English 101
Prof O’Connell
Toxicity
How could it come to this? Roger simply could not comprehend.
Even as
he was escorted to the police car and mobbed by so many reporters,
all
he could do is wonder how he had lost so much control; how was it
that
this morning, he was a senator in the United States government and
now
he was going to be prosecuted as a criminal? As the squad car pulled
out, all Roger could do is see all the faces, full of anger, full of
disappointment, full of disbelief, peering into the car, into Roger
himself. All were his victims; all were left with nothing, all were
eager to get their hands on him. Soon the crowd began to toss cans,
books, and pretty much anything at hand or within reach at the
vehicle. Roger dropped his head and tried to piece everything
together, from the start to his present situation…
Roger was born one Roger Johann Habsucht, on the 5th day of
August
1960 in North Dakota. Roger was the son of Ingrid and Johann
Habsucht;
both were German immigrants seeking opportunities for themselves and
for little Roger. Through toil and sweat, they managed to open a
small
butcher shop and provide Roger with everything he could ever want.
His
parents were strict; however they did not hesitate to provide Roger
with affection. Their home was not lavished in fine linens or marble,
but it was comfortable and was more than enough for Roger and his
family. Mr. and Mrs. Habsucht did not have anymore children, so Roger
was their sole treasure. Upon being old enough to attend school, Mr.
Habsucht made sure that Roger made his studies a priority above all
else. Roger soon realized that higher grades meant happier parents,
which meant greater freedoms for Roger.
And so it was that Roger grew up and relished his studies,
mainly
because of his introversion and his lack of good looks. Roger was
tall, skinny, and required special glasses for his severely impaired
vision. His acne and his slight hunch only made his appearance more
of
a magnet for vicious attacks from the jocks, cheerleaders, and
others.
Roger grew in anger and resentment; he increasingly avoided others
and
preferred the solidarity and serenity of his books. His parents did
not mind, after all Roger was going to be valedictorian and had
already won a full scholarship to Yale.
Yale was different from high school, here his intellectual
prowess
was rewarded and sought after, not jeered and scoffed. Roger became
even more immersed in his studies, particularly economics and
finance.
Roger loved numbers, especially to see then grow when he began to
play
around in the stock market. Now, he had finally found his true love…
money. Roger could not wait to learn more about financial
institutions
and the procedures involved. His only concern were the laws and
regulations that Roger saw as an impedance to true accumulation of
wealth and the actualized implementation of Laissez-faire economics.
Roger began to wonder what the American government was good for, true
wealth and happiness, it seemed, was found outside of governmental
meddling. As he ascended the educational ladder, he met others that
shared his vision of a government-intervention free America, where
the
market place regulated itself and the entrepreneur and corporation
could navigate his, or its, own destiny.
After Yale, Roger accepted a position as a bank-teller. Sure,
he
realized he could have and be more, but he wanted to start at the
bottom, to see economics at work at the most simplest and basic of
levels. Needless to say, Roger was promoted quickly and frequently.
Roger was soon Vice President of his branch. All admired and envied
Roger, but Roger did not care, it was all about profit and figures.
Roger did not make friends, he had business partners, and he did not
seek acquaintances but sought business opportunities and future
connections. It was all business for Mr. Habsucht. On a smoldering
summer afternoon, Roger was approached by Mr. Baverstock, CEO of one
of the wealthiest banks in New York. Roger could only stare in
disbelief as the stately Mr. Baverstock slowly and intentionally
stalled before speaking to Roger. Soon Mr. Baverstock had laid out
his
proposition out in full, and could only feint relief when Roger
quickly accepted his offer.
Roger once again started out at the bottom, the newest
associate at
the firm but nonetheless possibly the most ambitious. After ten
months
of what seemed like eternity, Roger was made a loan officer. What
Roger loved most about his new position was that he was paid in
commission. The bigger the amount in a given transaction, the higher
his pay check grew. He schemed at night, trying to look for ways to
attract more clientele and increase his income. It became all
consuming for Roger; all he could see were the possible figures. His
appetite for success was insatiable, the only barrier to him were
those forsaken regulations by the government, why, he wondered, could
the government not see that they were impeding success for people and
not helping it flourish.
His corporate climb began to accelerate; culminating when
Roger
became CEO, replacing Mr. Baverstock now, the sky seemed like the
limit. One evening his friends jokingly suggested that Roger should
run for office after a hotly debated exchange between Roger and his
friends. They said, “If the government is so intrusive, why don’t you
become a senator and propose deregulating financial institutions.”
Roger was insulted at first, how could his friends be so ignorant?
How
could they jest at the beauty and perfection of a deregulated market?
Soon his perplexity turned to wonder. What if he ran and could
revolutionize the market? Roger was now consumed with the idea, he
began inquiries into the process of running for election, he began to
seek out his old Yale connections in hope that they may aid him, and
finally he began proper preparations to formally be nominated for the
position as senator of North Dakota. After a lengthy letter of
resignation, Roger headed west to North Dakota. Gathering support was
not difficult, the people of North Dakota were only too happy to hear
the possibilities Roger would bring to them if he was a senator. They
cheered and chanted, feverishly, believing that Roger was promising
to
deliver the American dream to them. Rally after rally, Roger brought
more people on board as he eloquently stated how the government of
the
United States was taking their wealth and that the only person who
could help them was Roger Habsucht. His rallies grew in intensity,
anger raged in the attendees as they began to perceive the
government’s obstruction to their accumulation of “potential” wealth.
The election was a landslide; Roger was now a senator of the
state of
North Dakota. Due to his overwhelming success, the national
Republican
Party leader, Senator Umoralsk, took notice of the up and coming
Roger
Habsucht. Roger began to make connections all over the senate with
republican senators; he could not hide his joy when he discovered
that
all of them agreed with his point of view concerning deregulation.
Soon he drafted a preliminary version of the bill for deregulating
markets. Every night he returned home exhausted, but every night he
worked on this bill. Finally, he was satisfied and approached Senator
Umoralsk. As Senator Umoralsk read the document, a smile crept
through
his face; he became entranced as each word brought so many
possibilities. Upon finishing, Senator Umoralsk told Roger that if he
could produce a refined version for senate presentation, he would
sponsor it and help campaign his bill. That night, Roger dreamt about
the new United States that he would foster in with his bill.
After senate had reconvened, Roger had his bill completed and
had
gathered his support ready to vote on his bill, the only obstacle
left
was the president and the democrats. Of course, since the president
was republican and surrounded by special interest groups, he would
not
pose a problem. As expected, the bill met opposition from the
democrats; they argued that deregulating markets would only foster
greed and corruption, unethical and immoral practices. Roger resented
the democrats; “those ignorant, socialist jerks are simply not
capable
of seeing the possibilities, the opportunities that would be created
by such an act as deregulation” rebutted Roger. Since the republicans
had the majority, Roger’s bill passed 65 to 35 easily sailing past a
filibuster, Roger was hailed as a hero to capitalism and free markets
everywhere.
Soon, deregulation began to show its true nature, toxic bank
loans
were signed everywhere, homes were being foreclosed on owners who
could not pay those toxic loans, financial institutions were
crumbling
all around the country as they suffered losses from the purchases of
those toxic loans. Jobs were shipped overseas to country that did not
protect the workforce. Taxes were cut for these selfish corporations,
the trust-busters of the past were rescinded and corporations became
monstrous entities that could not be satiated despite their windfall
profits. The consumer economy of the United States was dying and
growing closer to its death cries. The public grew angry, and began
to
ask who was responsible for the state of the economy. All eyes fell
on
Senator Habsucht. Soon, the senators who had first supported and
financed Roger now were using him as a scapegoat. Roger was all
alone.
Senator Umoralsk turned his back on Roger and was the first to point
a
finger in his direction. The state of North Dakota was seeking to
remove Roger from his seat and his connections had already severed
their ties to him.
Soon, all across the nation, stories were cropping up of the
briberies that had made their way across his desk, how Roger had been
seen frequently with special interest group lobbyists, from petroleum
to pharmaceutical companies. All his elicit affairs were aired for
all
to see and criticize. And the coup de grace, the attorney general of
the United States had filed an indictment of multiple counts of
corruption and other charges.
And now, Senator Habsucht was off to a cell. Roger went from
his
comfortable home of North Dakota, to Yale, to New York, to the
nation’s capitol, and now possibly to a federal penitentiary. How did
it come to this?

[o]

Jang, Sung Gi
November 8, 2008
English 101
Professor O’Connell
Whatever the Cost
Cullen Murphy’s (2007) Are We Rome? The Fall of an Empire and
the
Fate of America extends six points to establish his parallel analysis
of Rome and The United States of America. Of particular note, and
topic of this paper, is the privatization that occurred in the halls
of the Roman government and is mirrored today in the halls of Capitol
Hill. Ideally, the framework of law-makers and government officials
of
the legislative branch, whether of the United States of America, or
the Roman senate, should place public welfare and interest before
self-
interest or the interests of a few. Recently however, the
deregulation
of the banking industry has caused much chaos and strife for millions
while benefiting a handful of individuals. In order to better
appreciate the affect of this privatization, first, the negative
effect of privatization on Rome will be compared with privatization
as
it manifests itself today. Although Murphy does explain five other
factors to create a connection between the two civilizations, the
issue of the private interests of a few individuals is serious enough
alone to have detrimental ramifications to the majority and the
country, as can be testified to today.
Rome was built on the concept of a republic in which Roman citizens
elected officials who were entrusted to care for their districts.
Initially, this was the case and the public became not only fiercely
protective of their system, but fiercely proud of their democratic
ways. However, little by little, public interest gave way to favors
for elites and those in the inner circles of those in authoritative
positions. As Murphy has explained, “The change came when money
entered the picture in a significant way, and these countless
transactions began to come at a price.” (Murphy 2007) More and more,
those that could “grease the wheels” of officials were able to have
their way, in other words “privatized” interest. What happened, as a
consequence, was that a democratic system designed to elect an
official for the representation and benefit of the majority was
changed to focus on the interest of a few. This became commonplace as
evidenced by the letters of “Pliny the Younger” to the emperor Trajan
as he asked favor after favor from the emperor on behalf of those he
represented, or owed favors to. The once benevolent representatives
became an insatiable vacuum of briberies for “privatized” needs,
which
left citizens without the aide of the representatives whom were
elected to act in the interest of the people who had placed them in
their positions.
Today, privatization still looms, perhaps even more prevalent
in
American politics. The difference between America and Rome is that
the
individuals that influence decision-makers are specialists referred
to
as lobbyists. Perhaps one of the most infamous lobbyists, Jack
Abramoff was convicted of contracting fraudulently with SunCruz
casinos and for corrupting public officials. Abramoff just happened
to get caught, but the truth may be that Abramoff is one of many that
still defraud others and corrupt public officials. The de-regulation
of the banking industry is a prime example of such practices. As
banks
became de-regulated, the shield of ethics that maintained the checks
and balances in the banking industry was destroyed. Many bankers were
making quick, toxic loans to families and individuals who could not
possibly pay of the loan that was offered to them. These families and
individuals, applying for a loan, were distracted by the low monthly
payments promised to them. Even though the low payments were given,
the fact that they would not be paying the principal, but only
interest on the loan, for at least five years, was not clarified.
Also, another clause that was not made apparent was the fact that
after the first five years or so, the payment would, on the average,
double and become impossible to pay for these families and
individuals. These unscrupulous bankers would then sell the toxic
loan
immediately to corporations who were looking for profits. As the
toxic
loans began to accumulate, corporations took losses after losses and
the housing market came to an agonizing halt. However, instead of
helping the individuals deceived and losing their homes, the
government began
“…moving on multiple fronts to stem the worst financial
crisis in decades…The Treasury Department has asked Congress to give
it
sweeping power to buy up toxic debt that has unhinged Wall Street.”
(LA Times 2008)
This course of action only aids the corporations that bought the
toxic
loans but does not help the person who is left to pay the loan,
regardless of the fact that often the loan debt is greater than the
value of the home that had been purchased. The lack of remorse for
citizens by their elected officials is further aggravated as “one
Republican lawmaker complained, ‘If you buy more than you can afford,
you have to calculate the risk. I’m not sure government can be your
saviour every time.’” (Sustar 2008) If this line of logic is to be
accepted, then should not the same principal be applied towards the
corporations which bought the toxic loans? If the law-maker truly
believed the statement, why would assistance to all the corporations
that could not “calculate the risk” be acceptable or warranted?
Appallingly, this law-maker favored helping out a billion-dollar
corporation than a low-income family who elected the official into
office.
Privatization has been around since before the inception of
Rome, and
bribery has been a tool used by anyone with the means to offer a
bribe. Merchants have been quick to offer tribute to law officials to
look the other way for certain matters, and brothels have either
paid,
or offered free services to law enforcement representatives in order
to remain in business, just to cite a couple examples. The problem
with these practices is that this corruption causes the bribers to
grow in boldness and arrogance; they begin to believe they may do as
they wish since they can pay off any opposition. The unlawful, or
unethical, practices they initially were not prosecuted for commence
to become commonplace and begin to challenge the laws their society
has placed on all citizens. Accountability and responsibility becomes
a small nuisance that can easily be side-stepped for a sum of money
in
the right hands. For instance, people are now becoming aware that:
“Water and sewage systems are being privatized and public
hospitals
and public-
health programs…Meat inspection is done largely by the meatpacking
companies
themselves.” (Murphy 2007)
The government cannot claim ignorance of social issues and needs, as
one congressional bill from the legislative body of the United States
acknowledges that there is an obligation to “improve the lives” of
impoverished citizens:
"…the number of children living in extreme poverty rose by 87,000
from
2004-
2005; … in 2005, an estimated 33 percent of the homeless population
are children
and an estimated 1,350,000 children will experience homelessness in a
year…homeless children are in fair or poor health condition twice as
often as
other children and have higher rates of asthma, ear infections,
stomach problems,
and speech problems…” (Lee 2007)
Despite their acknowledgement, the current government administration
is not able to assist their citizens as “’The 21st century global
economy continues to be regulated by laws written in the 20th
century,’ Mr. Bush said, noting that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
has proposed an update of U.S. regulations. ‘Enacting these ideas
into
law must be a top priority for the next president and the next
Congress.’" (Pulizzi 2008)
Much desvastation has resulted from privatization not only in
Roman
times but also in the centuries leading to today. The majority was
ignored in favor for the minority that could pay off officials. The
Romans lost their empire and Americans are losing their country,
simply for the interest and benefit of a few. Murphy points out how
Rome was negatively affected by the privatized needs of those able to
manipulate those in authoritative positions, and wealthy enough to
bribe senators. The mighty senator who sought to build longer, safer
roads, increase the number of aqueducts, improve the might of the
Roman military force, increase the quality of life for fellow Romans,
became for sale to the highest bidders. Today, it is similar as the
elite and wealthy have a say in how the governement shapes laws and
governs its people as they privatize the needs of a country. All the
while citizens, Americans and Romans alike, suffer and become
resentful with each passing day. Romans became disenfranchized with
their empire and Americans are becoming angry with their government.
Some hope to mitigate and justify this system as Murphy attests,
“… that whatever its moral shortcomings, the profit motive,
including its corrupting dimension, is in fact an efficient economic
mechanism
(Murphy 2007)
Perhaps this is true; however one could also argue the same for
violence and extortion. Should the Romans have engaged in a violent
uprising against their senators and emperor? Would it be wise for
Americans to over-throw the government? Such extreme acts should not
be necessary to correct injustice, especially corruption from
privatization. It is unfortunate that those elected to safe-guard a
people can easily be bought and manipulated. Maybe Rome did not fall,
just the ethical and moral fiber of the empire, just as in the United
States.
References
Lee, Barbara. (2007). House Congressional Resolution (H.C.R.)
19
(ih). Affirming the sense of Congress regarding the obligation of the
United States to improve the lives of the 36,950,000 Americans living
in poverty and the 15,928,000 of those who live in extreme poverty.
[110th CONGRESS House Bills]. Washington D.C.:
Multiple quick fixes tried for US financial crisis. (September
19,
2008). Los Angeles Times, p. Business News.
Murphy, C (2007). Are we Rome? The fall of an empire and the fate of
America. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Pulizzi, H. (2008, October 17). Bush Defends Government
Measures, But
Reiterates Fix Will Take Time. The Wall Street Journal, Retrieved
October 17, 2008, from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122424721286944347.html
Sustar, L. (April 5, 2008). Market madness: The US economic crisis.
GreenLeftOnline, #746, Retrieved October 17, 2008, from
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/746/38614

[o]

Jang, Sung GI
October 12, 2008
English 101
Prof. O’Connell
To Be Or Not To Be?
From the speech, “Does America Need an Empire?” delivered during the
Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz’s Memorial Lecture in the campus of
University of California Berkeley, on March 12, 2003, Guest Speaker
Max Boot posed the question “Does America Need an Empire?” In order
to
justify his answer of affirmation, he puts forth several reasons;
however only three shall be analyzed. His first was that there needs
to be a “globo-police” in order to maintain order, his second was
that
aside from the United States, no one else is able to carry out such
undertakings. Finally, his third point is that since the United
States
is so powerful, it is obligated to perform this task. Despite Mr.
Boot’s complete confidence in his argumentation, Cullen Murphy would
be quick to refute Boot’s position. Even though Boot is certain he is
correct, present day United States, and Murphy, will prove him wrong.
Boot’s first argument for “Liberal Imperialism”, as he refers to it,
is that since the presence of “evil” inhabits the world, we need
protection from it. More accurately, Boot states: “I think we’d all
agree that yes they do need a police force, for the very simple
reason
that as long as evil exits, you have to have somebody who will
protect
peaceful people from predators.” (Boot 2003) The problem with Boot’s
logic falls in the form of semantics. Who exactly defines “evil”? And
what exactly constitutes “evil”? How can anyone dictate morals,
especially in this day and age? If the rest of the world does not
conform to the American ideal of righteousness, would that denote the
rest of the world as being “evil”? This line of rhetoric, using
terminology such as “evil”, can only erode the ability to create
harmony. Boot uses emotionally charged words to incite the audience
into fear and hate instead of patience and logical reasoning.
Boot’s second reason states that only the United States can safe-
guard
the world. “Who has to play that role. Is it going to be Belgium?
Bolivia? Burkina Faso? Bangladesh? Our friends in Paris? I think the
answer is pretty obvious. It’s the country with the most vibrant
economy, the most fervent devotion to liberty, and the most powerful
military.” (Boot 2003) Boot claims. However, Boot does not explain
why
the rest of the world is unable to protect itself and why it could
not
be assisted instead of the egotistical approach of taking over. Boot
later on argues that defense spending should not be considered a
problem because the United States could only go wrong if it
“underspends”, today’s economic problems is a great rebuttal to his
poorly thought out statement. Everyday that the United States has
soldiers in Iraq, billions are being spent, unfortunately even though
the fighting has stopped between the American military and Saddam’s
forces, people are still dying in Iraq, going hungry, growing
angrier,
and the threat of terrorists is probably higher today than pre-911.
Murphy points out that “Official Washington shares that the Ptolemaic
outlook. Unfortunately, it’s not a self-fulfilling prophesy-just a
faulty premise. And it leads to an exaggerated sense of Washington’s
weight in the world: an exaggerated sense of its importance in the
eyes of others, and of its ability to act alone.” (Murphy 2007)
Boot’s final reason is that United States has an obligation to
undertake the task of protecting the world. Boot drives the point
home
with the comment that “With all that power, I firmly believe, comes
responsibility. I believe we need to use our awesome power for the
good of the world.” (Boot 2003) If that is indeed the case, why is it
that America does not make significant attempts to provide medicine
to
impoverished nations, or attempt to provide food for those without
food, or water, or why is it that the United States does not attempt
to help provide construction projects to create schools in poor
nations? Boot seems to regard help only in the form of military
action, not in the form of financial assistance or other wise.
Despite
this, there is a bigger issue to be concerned with and that is the
issue of over-growth, or over-expansion. Murphy elaborates,
“Sprawling
powers like Rome and America face a built-in problem. They inevitably
become impossible to manage, because the very act of managing has
unpredictable effects, of global scale, which in turn become part of
the environment that needs to be managed.” (Murphy 2007) Never more
so
has this become true than today. The American economic downfall has
had repercussions all over the world and with the reported threat of
global-warming the United States is also seen as the front-runner for
solutions and ways in which to decrease oil dependency. All this is
expected, aside from the defending the world from harm. Due to
America
keeping its eyes on far off matters, things domestically have
deteriorated.
Boot brings up many points to which he believes champions his cause
for the United States role of “globo-police”. However, Mr. Boot’s
short-sighted views could not possibly foresee the present day
situation and how, by adhering to Boot’s half-thought out arguments,
America could arrival at such a dismal state. Murphy and present day
America easily dispel Boot’s half-thought out arguments. Perhaps
instead of sage-guarding abroad, America should ensure its people and
lands are taken care of first. As a wise and loving teacher once
said,
“Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the
beam of wood in your own?”

[o]

Jang, Sung Gi

English 101
Professor O’Connell

September 27, 2008
'
The Collective or the Individual
R. Dreher’s 2007, July 30. Are we Rome? How the U.S. can avoid
its
own version of the fall of Roman Empire attempts to refute Murphy’s
claim that the United States is fated to fall such as the Roman
Empire. Mr. Dreher argues that much of Murphy’s six-point view is “…
central to American politics of the moment…” this mindset is more
rationalistic than objective. Mr. Dreher fails to effectively negate
the six points offered by Murphy. One of Mr. Dreher’s arguments
contend that “Americans have far more power to control their fate”
however this point is increasingly being proven false as many
Americans are powerless to maintain their homes in a degenerate house
market. Second, Dreher says that it is “hard to discern why…” Murphy
can claim that in America “the common man satisfied himself with
material pleasures, ignoring the betterment of himself and society.”
In order to see this, simply compare the salary wages of an
entertainer versus that of an educator, the differences verge on the
obscene. Third, Dreher claims that “...there’s the matter of
migration
across borders of the imperium. Rome had always assimilated barbarian
tribes but towards the end lost the ability to control the rate of
migration, as well the facility for effectively Romanizing the
immigrants.” Today, the immigrant is not “Americanized” but
ostracized
and persecuted as a scapegoat. Upon analysis, Mr. Murphy’s claim
warrants further attention.
Mr. Dreher’s first argument states that some of the faults
listed by
Murphy are “…central to American politics of the moment…” To accept
this rationalization is counter-intuitive to a correct society. If we
are to accept this notion of accepting great flaws in government and/
or society is to then justify the many soldiers that engaged in
genocide during the Third Reich’s reign, in which soldiers claimed to
only follow orders of their superior commanders. This is not to say
that the United States is the “Fourth Reich” however, as individuals,
one cannot be complacent of injustices and obvious flaws of elected
and non-elected officials. Mr. Dreher’s next attempt at refutation
claims that “Americans have far more power to control their fate”
however President Bush’s first term is empirical proof that this is
not so. The election became decided not by popular vote, but by the
Supreme Court, which did not have the jurisdiction to do so.
Increasingly, Americans are losing say in their daily lives as they
become more and more indebted to corporations and therefore lose
economic freedom. To make matters worse, capital hill is inundated
with lobbyists for corporations that cause the peoples will and
welfare to be ignored over corporate interest, as Murphy states that
“…
the fraying connection between imperial will and concrete action is a
big part of WHAT WENT WRONG in ancient Rome.” (Murphy 2007, p.19) The
second argument Mr. Dreher makes is that he cannot fathom why Murphy
can claim that in America “the common man satisfied himself with
material pleasures, ignoring the betterment of himself and society.”
Perhaps Mr. Dreher is not acquainted with current events, where the
government is asking for trillions without any accountability to the
government, let alone the American people who will be paying this
bill, in order to “correct” the current market conditions. Instead of
investing in the American public, they want to reinvest in the same
companies and corporations who mismanaged their business and helped
cause this catastrophe. However, let one examine the average American
citizen, what one sees is an individual who is grossly uniformed and
uneducated. This American citizen is solely interested in who is the
next “American Idol” instead of what the government has done and what
is currently doing. What can be said about this individual, who sadly
makes up the majority? American society has gone as far as ignoring
the fact that the current administration was caught lying to the
American public in order to attack another nation, and did not
reprimand or question further the actions of government in question.
As the nation’s economy further decays, John Q. Public remains
passively apathetic as she is satisfied with sitting in front of a
television set to watch her favorite program. Third, Dreher states
that “...there’s the matter of migration across borders of the
imperium. Rome had always assimilated barbarian tribes but towards
the
end lost the ability to control the rate of migration, as well the
facility for effectively Romanizing the immigrants.” Mr. Dreher fails
to state that Rome did not grow through immigration, but through
hegemony. The United States grew from the millions of immigrants who
came here in order to find a new start. This nation owes its success
to immigrants, who happen to be the “minority” now, compared to the
descendants of immigrants who now claim that this country is theirs.
Mr. Dreher (sounds like a German last name) does not acknowledge that
although the United States greatly benefits from the cheap labor that
the immigrants are often only allowed to partake in, companies and
corporations then claim that these immigrants are taking the jobs of
“hard-working Americans” It is this hypocrisy that Mr. Dreher does
not
see or address. Case in point, a while back, Wal-Mart failed to pay
some of their employees, who they knew were not legally qualified to
work in the United States, over-time which had accumulated over a
period of some months. When the employees decided to band together in
order to receive their due payment for services rendered, Wal-Mart
management called immigration services on these individuals to avoid
paying them their wages and have them deported. Mr. Dreher states
Mexico as an obvious comparison, let one analyze this situation.
Mexico, while rich in resources and land, is dominated by a
relatively
few people who refuse to help the indigenous people of Mexico and
further exploits them in order to increase their wealth. Education in
this country is low when comparing census and student enrollment in
educational institutions and the poverty rate is incredible. People
in
need of food and shelter have no choice but to look at their northern
neighbor for assistance. Therefore, they cross a river, fight against
racist “Minutemen,” aggressive border patrol agents, crooked
“coyotes” (men hired to cross people over the border), and other
obstacles just for the opportunity to work. And yet, these
individuals
are the antagonists in the economical crisis in this country.
While Mr. Dreher does attempt to disprove Mr. Murphy’s claim,
he
falls short. Mr. Dreher does not address issues but rationalizes the
current condition of the United States. The failings of an
administration, or government, cannot go unnoticed because it will
lead to more tragedies and abuse from future administrations.
Citizens
cannot let leaders get away with any abuse no matter how
insignificant
or outrageous, “a rose is a rose by any other name.” Americans cannot
let their rights and freedoms erode especially under false pretenses,
never more so than now. Americans are losing their voice and
conglomerations and corporations are now stating what people should
say and think, the media is skewing what is real, and Americans
remain
unaware and uninterested. Americans are far too busy following
maladjusted movie and television stars to be preoccupied with current
events. The latest gossip is more crucial than the corruption of many
corporate executives, the next “Survivor” is more important than the
next president; Ms. Lohan’s relationships are more alluring than Ms.
Palin’s gross ignorance and lack of qualifications. Mr. Dreher
mentions America’s relation to Mexico. Mr. Dreher does not even
formulate a complete thought; he just cites the example and quickly
forges through. Mr. Dreher comes out as incomplete in thought and
analysis; he manages to only skim the surface of arguments but never
fully develops anything substantial. On the other hand, Mr. Murphy
remains untouched and his points undisturbed as a menacing reminder
of
what may be.

[o]

Jang. Sung Gi
September 20, 2008
English 101
As American As a Gladiator Match?
Ever since the first pilgrims came to the shores of this
young nation, there has been a steady stream of immigrants that have
followed in their wake. They come here in order to attain another
opportunity to improve their lives. However, why would they leave
their former lives behind and sometimes all their possessions in
order
to arrive in the United States? America is recognized as a great
land,
full of opportunities and riches. Is it really the land of milk and
honey? According to author Cullen Murphy, not for long. In his book,
Are We Rome? Mr. Murphy argues that the downfall of the United States
is sure to come like that of the ancient civilization of Rome.
Like Rome, the United States is a world superpower in terms of
military and economy. Another comparison comes in the view of
corruption and exploitation, and also the way the United States
interacts with the rest of the nations (foreign policy), as Rome
dealt
with other nations. In refutation of Cullen Murphy, Victor Hanson
claims, in his May 18, 2007 article, Pop Romanizing, that Mr. Murphy
creates a poor parallel in choosing Rome and that Mr. Murphy’s
comparisons are simplistic at best. However, upon further analysis
Mr.
Murphy proves to be correct.
The first comparison that is made compares the supremacy of both
empires. In the case of Rome, its empire started at the Atlantic
Ocean
and ended in Asia Minor. Its might could not be equaled by any other
nation and its economy controlled all others. Roman currency was used
throughout the land encompassed by the Roman Empire, and even beyond.
Militarily speaking, like the United States, Rome was uncontested as
the superpower of its day. As President George W. Bush has commented
that, “...arms races by other nations are ‘pointless,’ because
American power is now and will forever be kept ‘beyond challenge’ and
capable of striking ‘at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the
world.’” (Cullen 2007, p.7) However Hanson belittles Murphy’s
parallel
by claiming that,”Murphy’s military comparison should be more
fertile,
since-like Rome-we have an army that is relatively small,
professional, and voluntary. Yet here too we get the same
oversimplification…’yesterday’s Conan the barbarian is Conan the
contractor.’” (Hanson 2007) Despite Mr. Hanson’s attempt to refute
Mr.
Murphy, he misses the point entirely in order to personally attack
Murphy. Rome had the most technologically advanced weaponry at its
disposal and was willing to use them for its victory; Hiroshima and
Nagasaki come to mind when comparing America. Rome used its might for
imperialistic expansion, although in modern times it is impractical
to
be imperialistic in terms removing physical land from others, in
these
days imperialism is in terms of economic influence. Hanson’s
comparison of military does not in any way commence to dispute the
mindset with which President Bush reflects concerning American might
and its usage.
Secondly, corruption and exploitation has been commonplace throughout
human history. In the case of Rome, one may see it manifested in the
form of “…maintaining a distinction between public and private
responsibilities - and between public and private resources. The line
between these is never fixed, anywhere. But when it becomes too hazy,
or fades altogether, central government becomes impossible to steer.
It took a long time to happen, but the fraying connection between

imperial will and concrete action is a big part of WHAT WENT WRONG in

ancient Rome.” (Murphy 2007, p.19) Today, never has this tragedy
become more relevant and more obvious. The once “United States” has
now become the “United Corporations” of America. The distinction
between “public and private resources” has been eradicated as
corporation lobbyists promote their agendas in the Senate over the
needs of the American public. To that end, a great deal of power has
been given to these corporations and now it has become a catastrophe.
Today, the markets are beginning to crash, thanks in part to the
corruption of the corporations. Institutions that had to formerly
adhere to government regulations have been de-regulated and engaged
in
unethical practices. Such unethical practices have led to the
instability of the American economy as giants begin to fall. This in
turn has also affected other economies; according to The Economist,
Finance and Economics, Sept. 18, 2008 Wall Street’s bad dream, “Aptly
enough, the crisis is spreading from one region to the next. Asian
and
European stockmarkets suffered steep falls. Another weak spot is the
$62 trillion market for credit-default swaps, which has given
regulators nightmares since the loss of Bear Stearns. It did not fall
apart after the demise of Lehman, another big dealer. But it remains
fragile; or, as one banker puts it, in a state of “orderly chaos”.
However, Hanson tries to shed light on matters as he claims that
using
historical literature and texts written about Romes corruption and
unethical practices can be quite misleading because “…Roman
literature, usually written by disaffected elites, is as consistently
reactionary as it is moralistic in nature. Juvenal, Livy, Petronius,
Sallust, the younger Seneca, Suetonius, and Tacitus, all knee-deep in
the luxury of their times, all nevertheless deplored the supposed
decadence of their respective eras. They can be fine witnesses to
Roman decline and the corrosive effects of luxus, but their
pessimistic-and often hypocritical-genre of ‘things going to hell in
a
hand basket’ needs to be weighted carefully against concomitant
evidence from mute numismatics, epigraphy, and archeology that
reflects a booming culture often at odds with what the cynical said
about it.” (Hanson 2007) Whether or not this is the case does not
bear
relevance on the effects of immorality and the blurring of the will
of
a nation (or empire) versus the will of a few. Hanson fails to begin
to attack the essence of Murphy’s analysis. Hanson attempts to attack
the character of the writers, but never the arguments themselves, the
merits of the arguments are left to be pondered by others.
Third, the United States is notorious for its foreign policies. For
both World Wars, it was late to join in the fight, and often America
is seen to treat other nations with a detachement closer to apathy
than objectivity. Due to this attitude, many nations have a great
repulsion for America. Rome “…often disparaged the people beyond its
frontiers, and generally underestimated their capabilities, even as
it
held an outsize opinion of its own superiority and power.” (Murphy
2007, p.19) Like Rome, the United States underestimates others. The
easiest example is that of the Vietnam War. America thought that it
could easily march into Vietnam and enforce it’s views, but the
Vietnamese opposition clearly thought different and was able to fight
the United States to a “stalmate”. Another instance is that of the
“Bay of Pigs” battle in which the United States sent in Marines and
other military units in order to invade Cuba. However, Cuba was able
to repel back the United States although it lost its southern tip to
the “invasion”. Hanson is quick to point out that “’Rome displayed
the
attribute of any great capital with more hubris than humility: the
overweening self-regard, the presumption that it knew better than
others, the surprising ignorance about foreign cultures, the languid
arroagance, the competitive displays of wealth…’ In truth, Rome knew
far more about foreign nations than any one of them did about Rome.
There was simply nothing comparable in Numidia, Parthia, or Germany
to
the anthropology evident in Caesar’s Gallic War, Sallust’s Jugurtha,
Pliny’s Natural History, or the Germania and Agricola of Tacitus,
which all reveal Rome’s near-obsession with the political and natural
history of its neighbors.” (Hanson 2007) What Hanson has failed to
make is the connection between respecting a nation and having
knowlegde of a nation. Hanson assumes that both are one and the same
when they are not. Never once did Hanson give illustrate how Rome’s
“near-obsession” help Rome respect other nations, nor will he be able
to.
America was a great nation and can still continue to be if it can
change its present course. However, until then all one can do is
witness it’s current degeneration. Murphy uses parallels in order to
express his arguments, not just in theory but in a historical
perspective. Although some of the parallels must be taken with a
grain
of salt, it does not keep Murphy from creating a powerful and
sobering
image of America’s possible future. Hanson refutes Murphy, however he
fails to direct his attacks to the actual arguments made by Murphy
and
decides to create distractions from the main issues. In the end,
Murphy does a much more convincing job of painting a parallel than
Hanson does trying to bring down the walls of Murphy’s arguments.