Outside Reading Quarter 2: Post 3

In the book "Three Cups of Tea" Greg Mortenson needs to decide whether he will help the people of Pakistan by building them a school, or if he will stay in America with his girlfriend and settle down and have a family. Greg chose to go to Pakistan and build the school. This shows that Greg knows that it is the correct choice for him to do what is better for the greater society, in his case helping the many people in Pakistan. He could have also made this decision and known that if his girlfriend was really the right fit for him as a life partner she would share his ethical standpoint and understand his actions. While reading a bit more reveals that his girlfriend does indeed share his drive to help other people, leaving shows that he is willing to take a risk to do what he believes is right. Not only does this show that he is a sound person ethically, it shows that he is not afraid to be a whistle blower and stand up for what he believes to be right.

Mortenson is faced with a similar problem later on in the book, when the people of the village he was building a school at asked him if he could build a bridge for them. While Mortenson hadn't enjoyed sleeping in his car and living in a storage space, he knew that the people in Pakistan didn't enjoy walking through a river many times a day. Mortenson saw that he could build them a bridge, and he wanted to. He knew that it would be in the best interest of many people, and while it might not be fun for him, it was the best thing to do. Mortenson liked helping people, but also did it because he knew he would feel that if he didn't he would regret his poor decision. This steadfast loyalty to serving others is a testimony to the strength of his character ethically.

On the Waterfront

The characters in the film "On the Waterfront" are split in their beliefs regarding what makes up a whistle-blower or tattle-tale. In Edy and the priest's view, it is one's responsibility to come forth with any knowledge relating to the murder of Joey. For them, holding back knowledge makes a person just as bad as anyone that actually committed the crime. The mob on the other hand believes that since Terry and Doogan were in on the plan from the very beginning they are simply being tattle-tales by talking to the priest. They believe that since Terry and Doogan were in on the plan from the start, they had an agreement to be "D and D". The result of Terry or Doogan telling on the mob would result in the loss of their strong dock position and a gain a place in jail. Terry is stuck in the middle of this situation and has to decide whether he will condemn his brother or not. The decision for him is hard, because he knows whatever move he makes, a group of people won't be happy with him, and he needs to find out which group is more important.

I believe that a person is usually both a tattle-tale and a whistle blower in most situations, and what they have to decide is which side is appropriate to go along with. If the situation is small and doesn't negatively affect the society or anyone involved, telling people about some bad judgement I would consider being a tattle-tale. If the situation hurts others or the society than a person needs to be a whistle blower when they are tell about what is going on. I also think that a person is a tattle-tale when they fully involve themselves in the situation before stepping out and speaking to others on what is going on. If a person only is slightly involved in a situation and see corruption, they are being a whistle blower by reporting their observations. The reasons for this is a person must get out of a situation by being a whistle blower before gaining the trust of the other people involved, therefore turning yourself into a tattle-tale.

All My Sons

In the play "All My Sons" by Arthur Miller, Joe Keller decides to make decisions that benefits his family, where as Chris and Ann don't agree with that opinion. When Joe tells Steve to cover and ship the broken parts, he knowingly sent many pilots to their demise. Joe justified his action by believing it was in the best interest for the family, by maintaining the future for his son he had worked so hard to obtain. After finally admitting to knowingly shipping the bad parts, Joe shares his thoughts with Chris. While addressing Chris, Joe said, "For you, a business for you!"(70). By sending bad parts, J.O. Keller Inc. stayed in business and would provide a good living for Chris. Joe truly believed that it was his job to care for his family no matter what that meant, even the killing of others. Joe again shows how important family is to him when he states, "I owe him a good kick in the teeth, but he's your father..."(49). While this statement was partly in defense of his own actions, Joe did believe that caring for family was more important than the need of the society. Chris and Ann don't agree with him, and believe that people must do what is in the best interest of the society. Chris said, "God in heaven, what kind of a man are you? Kids were hanging in the air by those heads"(70). Chris thought that a true man would care for his society and make the right choice by not shipping the parts, and thus risking his family's wealth for the benefit of others.
I think it is important to put your family's needs in front of the needs of society on very few occasions. Usually the needs of the society are greater, and working towards a greater purpose, such as winning a war or keeping men alive. However when thinking about a situation involving a much smaller problem, it is important to put your family first. For instance if the problem involves rationing a limited item, such as wealth, or in times of need, food, your family should come first. Most of the time though the society has a greater need than your family. In general, I don't agree with doing something that kills a person for the benefit of my family, or the other way around. This question is very situational and is hard to answer without a specific case, however no matter how much we may love our families it is necessary view the situation from a by-stander's point of view and normally the decision that should be made will be to do what is best for the society.

Miller, Arthur. "All My Sons". New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.

Outside Reading #2

Greg Mortenson was taken in by a small village in Pakistan, and after gaining the trust of the people in the village, learned about their daily life and what true poverty the people live in. After learning that the children don't have a school building and only have a teacher for three days of the week, Greg tells the people that he will build them a school. Since Greg had very low income, it required remarkable sacrifices for this to be accomplished. Greg had to make many decisions in order for his school to be completed. Greg wanted to give all he had into the trip, and even, "decided not to rent an apartment. He had the storage space. And La Bamba's backseat was the size of a couch"(49). The enormity of Greg's passion for his mission was not shown as clearly before as in this choice. Deciding to live out of a car is an example of Greg's moral decisions, where he wanted to give everything he could to the people in Pakistan.
When buying supplies in Pakistan, Greg’s helper, Abdul, helps him bargain for supplies. When Abdul bargains, he brings in religious reasons for giving a better price. Greg hears Abdul tell a salesman, “A true Muslim would leap at the chance to help poor children instead of trying to steal their money” (65). When Abdul is trying to bring down the price he questions the seller’s religion, an act that arouses thought over the ethics of both men. While it is probably a good practice to keep religion out of business, Abdul makes a valid point about giving to the poor, a good, ethical act of any person, and especially of a devote Muslim. Whether or not religion should be brought into the problem, trying to sell lumber at a high price to an organization set out to help the poor is unethical.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Outside Reading Quarter 2: Post 1

The memoir of Greg Mortenson's actions in Pakistan and Afghanistan opens with his failure to summit K2 and his reaction to this failure. A strong man and very experienced climber, Mortenson is surprised by his failure and amazed since this was one of the first times he has really failed at a big goal in his life. His tells of his childhood through recollection and shows the reader that his past has been full of charitable acts and that his parents were public servants wanting the best for the world. Before reading this memoir I read a summary and know that it specifically focuses on his building of schools. He spent some of his childhood in Tanzania while his parents built schools for people living there, which developed in him a sense of responsibility. His care for other people is demonstrated by his kind actions towards his sister who suffered from epileptic seizures, and help set him up as a character that always cares for others. He is unhappy at his failure to summit the mountain not only for personal goals that may have been accomplished, but also because the trip had been in honor of his sister.

The book also starts to explore the ethical choices that people have to make every day. Although we have not discussed this topic yet in class, very obvious ethical choices needed to be made in Mortenson's trips. Two men were planning on summating a mountain, when a third man had fallen ill. Mortenson recounts, "Dan and Jon were the real heroes," he says. "They gave up their summit bid to get Etienne down"(14). This decision was an easy one to make, but did require a moral decision. Dan and Jon could've simply left Etienne on the mountain for another group to help and complete their summit dreams. This would be almost the same as murder, and anyone in this situation would do the right thing, as Dan and Jon did, and assist Etienne down the mountain. Later in the story Mortenson's guide keeps a close eye on him, even during his Muslim prayer practice. Mouzafer would, "steal a glance away from Mecca to make sure Mortenson was still nearby"(22). This action gets into a religious decision, and I won't call myself an expert of Islam by any means. However, I do believe that during prayer time you should be devoting yourself to God. I believe that Mousafer made the right decision by making sure that Mortenson stayed out of trouble and alive, even if it meant not completely devoting his time to God. Saving a man's life probably makes up for skimping on prayer. The ethics explored early in this story show people making good decisions that led to a positive outcome for all.

Mortenson, Greg, and David Relin. “Three Cups of Tea”. New York: Penguin Group, 2006.

Obama Infomercial Well Received By Media

Last night Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign aired a thirty minute infomercial, a way to address voters that hasn't been seen in this campaign. The cost to run this program nation wide on many leading networks was around four million, a number that puts Obama's financial advantage in perspective. Many viewers and writers had positive comments about the show, and thought the feel of the ad may have caused it to be more effective. As stated by The Politico it, "weaved together American iconography -- images of amber waves of grain, pickup trucks and American flags -- with portraits of iconic voters, testimonials from politicians and one business figure, footage of Obama speeches and direct appeals from the candidate"(1). The writer of this article felt the composition of the film really added to its effectiveness, by bringing shots of an average American into the homes of viewers and how Obama will affect everyone's life. Without this composition and smooth editing, the program wouldn't have been nearly as effective because it wouldn't cause people to stop what their doing and watch it, and it wouldn't tell so strongly where Obama stands on issues. A writer from the Washington Post, Tom Shales wrote the program was, "a series of seamlessly blended segments"(1). Tom Shales noticed how the editors of the infomercial compiled the clips, making the film both interesting and informative. By understanding film analysis techniques, much more can be gained from watching seemingly normal programs such as the one aired by the Obama campaign.

"Campaign News." “USNews”. 30 Oct 2008. 30 Oct 2008 .

Film Review: "Pride and Glory"

After reading the review of the film "Pride and Glory" given by Sean O’Connell I wanted to go and see the movie myself. He describes the film as standing out from all of the other cop movies that try to replicate CSI or other thrillers, and loves the solvable mystery it presents. Without giving much plot summary, O’Connell provides many comments that explain what made the movie, in his mind, exceptional. O’Connell explains, “'Glory' methodically lays out its details, revealing minor surprises instead of forcing major twists”(1). Through the analysis of the themes and plot points in the film, O’Connell intrigued me to watch the movie by explaining what made the movie interesting to him, such as the twists and surprises. His analysis continues to include the composition of the footage, where he praises director Gavin O’Connor and cinematographer Declan Quinn. O’Connell gave them credit, “for diving into slummy tenements and low-lit police precincts, as well as modest suburban homes which officers could afford on an NYPD salary”(2). The description plants an image that gives us not only a better idea about the way the main characters in the film live, but also the feeling that goes along with most of the film. The dim lighting that was described is usually a more suspicious atmosphere, which makes sense in a movie such as this. This review made me want to watch the movie, due to its elaborate analysis of plot on shot composition. If you have thought about seeing this film and want an opinion, I would recommend reading this article.

O'Connell, Sean. "Pride and Glory." "FilmCritic". 2008. 23 Oct 2008.