Personally, it’s hard to hear anyone justify war for any reason. I think war is barbaric and I no longer buy the argument that those who participate in war are protecting my freedom unless the freedom they speak of refers to a freedom to invade other people’s lands to strip them of resources so I can maintain the nationalistic, wasteful way of life that I have grown accustomed to. I’d prefer that our leaders pursue an agenda that leads us to share the world’s limited resources rather than kill others for a greater proportion of them. In order to kill citizens of other lands, we have to believe that U. S. citizens are somehow more valuable and entitled than non U.S. citizens. If our leaders do decide to take the country to war, as a matter of course, they should lead their own kids to war first, and not expect the rest of our kids to pay the full cost of their decisions.

I found it interesting that Nathaniel Fick starts out his essay with the word citizen-soldier while describing his admiration for the Greek farmers who traded their plows for swords, but then spends much of the essay trying to convince us that well educated people make better soldiers than citizen farmers, etc. I found other contradictions as well.

He claims he never has to wrestle with discipline problems because his soldiers are volunteers. Perhaps he is a good leader. According to my brothers who served, the military is one of the few places where men feel a strong loyalty and bond with each other.  Good leaders bring out the best in others and if one is treated respectfully, I find it hard to believe that other soldiers, less educated soldiers, would behave much differently than these particular soldiers in regard to discipline problems.  He claims that grunts are no longer relevant but then describes support jobs, like truckdriving and engine repair as jobs that minorities fill. He later says his infantry platoons were made up of men “far more diverse than my class at Dartmouth, and far more willing to act on their principles.” 

He confused me entirely when he described the qualifications and enlistment standards (There has been much news made from the lowering of these standars in order to increase enrollment quotas) and again when he described why a larger force where members serve fewer deployments makes a stronger military after saying earlier that the military requires much more training and education now than before.

Mostly, I react to his essay negatively because I hate the glorification of mass killing when in many other arenas, technology for instance, we view ourselves as part of a global community. I think we are capable of understanding other countries’ priorities and negotiating with them in a way that makes a saner world for all.  I’m intolerant of one who tries to make a good argument for any kind of war. 

“Suffering a bout of insomnia, however, I was stalking sleep, not defenseless wayfarers.” This sentence in paragragh two, is at the heart of Staples’ essay. An ordinary person, unable to sleep, is doing what anyone might do, but then in doing so, is percieved as someone with entirely different intent.

Throughout his essay, I see this disparity between his attempt to move through life as himself; a normal young man, afraid of knives, engrossed in classes, a walker, and the perception that others have of him; abnormal, a knife wielder, a fearsome entity, a night time criminal. Isn’t this disparity the heart of racism?

Two other messages stood out for me in Staple’s essay. First, in paragraph five, he shows his awareness of women’s fear, a fear based in reality. He shows a sensitivity to all involved in his described incidents.  However, this sensitivity does not lessen the pain and isolation that racism brings to people of color. Can white people even imagine the damage done to one’s psyche to feel “ever the suspect” whenever one is in public space?

The other bit that caught my eye was the “bandolier-style” purse straps. This detail implies that he is not referring to older women who might remember Jim Crow segregation.  He is talking about women who view themselves as younger, hipper, more enlightened, and who probably pride themselves on being no longer racist.  He’s talking about me.

List evidence/draw conclusions: 

 1)Car is stuck over water between the dock and a boat

2) The dock and the boat had to be there first

3) Woman with car keys does not appear to be wet

4) Rope is slack; must be untethered

Paragraph: I gather that this picture was taken some time after the accident. The woman in forefront appears official but I’m guessing all bystanders are simply gawking at the wacky accident since there is no sign of water on the dock.