In the reading The Position of Poverty by John Kenneth Galbraith, he talks about 2 types of poverty. One of which is called “case poverty” and the other which is called “insular poverty”.
Galbraith defines case poverty as “case poverty is the poor farm family with the junk-filled yard and the dirty children playing in the bare dirt. Or it is the gray-black hovel beside the railroad tracks. Or it is the basement dwelling in the alley.” (Galbraith 407). In other words it think he is saying that case poverty is the type of poverty you would see anywhere you go, down the street, next door, around the corner, etc..
Galbraith explains insular poverty as “that which manifest itself as an “island” of poverty. In the island, everyone or nearly everyone is poor.” (Galbraith 407). At first reading this I was confused by his meaning of an “island”, but reading on I think he means instead of just here and there poverty, as considered case poverty, he means a whole community of people suffering from poverty. According to Galbraith the “most modern poverty is insular in character and the islands are the rural and urban slums.” (Galbraith 408).
Galbraith says “the most certain thing about poverty is that it is not remedied by a general advance in income. Case poverty is not remedied because the specific individual inadequacy precludes employment and participation in the general advance. Insular poverty is not directly alleviated because the advance does not remove the specific frustrations of environment to which the people of these areas are subject.” (Galbraith 409). I took this as Galbraith saying case poverty is not easy to get rid of because a person is not always willing to move ahead and insular poverty is not an individuals fault it is more the environments fault.
Works Cited
Galbraith, John Kenneth. “The Position of Poverty.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Lee A. Jacobs. 7th ed. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 406-413.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Rawls: A Therory of Justice
Throughout John Rawls reading on A Theory of Justice, he speaks about his idea of “justice as fairness”.
Rawls came up with this “justice as fairness” through the principles of justice. These principles of justice “…are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established.” (Rawls 199).
Another of Rawls explanation to “justice as fairness” is “…it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. The name does not mean that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, any more than the phrase “poetry as metaphor” means that the concept of poetry and metaphor are the same” (Rawls 200). I like this explanation of what he means by “justice as fairness” because when first reading this I did not understand exactly what he meant by this phrase.
This is how I think he articulates his idea of “justice as fairness”. Rawls starts off with the idea of the principles of justice and makes them into his idea of “justice as fairness”. As he says where it begins is “...with the choice of the first principle of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 200). To me his way of explaining “justice as fairness is taking the ideas of the principle of justice and applying it to explain his idea of “justice as fairness”.
Works Cited
Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 195-206.
Rawls came up with this “justice as fairness” through the principles of justice. These principles of justice “…are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established.” (Rawls 199).
Another of Rawls explanation to “justice as fairness” is “…it conveys the idea that the principles of justice are agreed to in an initial situation that is fair. The name does not mean that the concepts of justice and fairness are the same, any more than the phrase “poetry as metaphor” means that the concept of poetry and metaphor are the same” (Rawls 200). I like this explanation of what he means by “justice as fairness” because when first reading this I did not understand exactly what he meant by this phrase.
This is how I think he articulates his idea of “justice as fairness”. Rawls starts off with the idea of the principles of justice and makes them into his idea of “justice as fairness”. As he says where it begins is “...with the choice of the first principle of a conception of justice which is to regulate all subsequent criticism and reform of institutions” (Rawls 200). To me his way of explaining “justice as fairness is taking the ideas of the principle of justice and applying it to explain his idea of “justice as fairness”.
Works Cited
Rawls, John. “A Theory of Justice.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 195-206.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Stanton: Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions
“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of men toward women, having a direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.” (Stanton 165). This quote says a lot in itself.
In Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s reading, Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, it speaks the truth of separation between sexes by the power of one sex and the truth of the power that favored one and shattered another.
This power that is spoken about is the power men had over women. According to Stanton “He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.” (Stanton 165). This quote shows the power men have had over women. Continuing from here according to Stanton women were also robbed of their “voices”. She says “He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.” (Stanton 165). Another quote that caught my eye was when Stanton said “he has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.” (Stanton 166). This caught my eye because at one point this, including the other quotes listed and many more, was what our history was. These quotes by Stanton just go to show how men once deprived women of their rights as an equal. Sad, but very true!
Works cited
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 164-168.
In Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s reading, Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, it speaks the truth of separation between sexes by the power of one sex and the truth of the power that favored one and shattered another.
This power that is spoken about is the power men had over women. According to Stanton “He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.” (Stanton 165). This quote shows the power men have had over women. Continuing from here according to Stanton women were also robbed of their “voices”. She says “He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.” (Stanton 165). Another quote that caught my eye was when Stanton said “he has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.” (Stanton 166). This caught my eye because at one point this, including the other quotes listed and many more, was what our history was. These quotes by Stanton just go to show how men once deprived women of their rights as an equal. Sad, but very true!
Works cited
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” A World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. New York; Bedford St. Martins, 2006. pp 164-168.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Martin Luther King Jr.:Letter from Birmingham Jail
Why was Martin Luther King Disappointed in The White Churches?
In the reading Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr., he talks about what kind of injustice there is in Birmingham. In the first few paragraphs Martin Luther King Jr. explains first off the reason he is in Birmingham. From this it gets into what kind of injustice is in Birmingham.
To start off Martin Luther King Jr. explains why he is in Birmingham. He starts off by saying “I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.” (King 174). He says from this to explain a little bit better that “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.” (King 174).
Now what kind of injustice does Martin Luther King Jr. find in Birmingham? According to him he says “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” (King 175). To me this means the kind of injustice Martin Luther King Jr. finds in Birmingham is the separation that has become between blacks and whites. Not just that but also how whites have become the control and power of all mankind, shutting down all equality blacks have with whites.
Martin Luther King is right. Where is the justice in this? There is none! No words can explain how brave and smart Martin Luther King Jr. is for standing up for what justice should be.
Works Cited
King Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp173-178.
In the reading Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr., he talks about what kind of injustice there is in Birmingham. In the first few paragraphs Martin Luther King Jr. explains first off the reason he is in Birmingham. From this it gets into what kind of injustice is in Birmingham.
To start off Martin Luther King Jr. explains why he is in Birmingham. He starts off by saying “I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.” (King 174). He says from this to explain a little bit better that “I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.” (King 174).
Now what kind of injustice does Martin Luther King Jr. find in Birmingham? According to him he says “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” (King 175). To me this means the kind of injustice Martin Luther King Jr. finds in Birmingham is the separation that has become between blacks and whites. Not just that but also how whites have become the control and power of all mankind, shutting down all equality blacks have with whites.
Martin Luther King is right. Where is the justice in this? There is none! No words can explain how brave and smart Martin Luther King Jr. is for standing up for what justice should be.
Works Cited
King Jr., Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp173-178.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
What kind of government does Thoreau feel would be the most just?
In the reading Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, he talks about what kind of government he feels would be the most just. The quote that caught me right away was when he said “I heartily accept the motto-“that government is best which governs least,” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically” (Thoreau 137). He shows he accepts that a just government governs least. From this quote he continues saying “…I believe-“that government is best which governs not at all”…” (Thoreau 137). This quote shows exactly what that the kind of government Thoreau thinks is just is a non-governed government. I also agree with Thoreau thoughts and beliefs on a just government.
The quote “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient” (Thoreau 137). At first I was confused by this but then after looking up the definition of expedient which by definition means something done or a method used to achieve an objective quickly, regardless of whether it is fair, right, or wise in long term. Putting this definition with the quote it made more since. To me it was kind of saying that the government is good but it choose things quickly no matter how it effects others. This goes back to what kind of government Thoreau thinks is just. To me it seems that he thinks that if a government did not govern in the since of achieving things quickly, that government would be the best.
Works Cited
Thoreau, David Henry. “Civil Disobedience.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp137-138
In the reading Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, he talks about what kind of government he feels would be the most just. The quote that caught me right away was when he said “I heartily accept the motto-“that government is best which governs least,” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically” (Thoreau 137). He shows he accepts that a just government governs least. From this quote he continues saying “…I believe-“that government is best which governs not at all”…” (Thoreau 137). This quote shows exactly what that the kind of government Thoreau thinks is just is a non-governed government. I also agree with Thoreau thoughts and beliefs on a just government.
The quote “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient” (Thoreau 137). At first I was confused by this but then after looking up the definition of expedient which by definition means something done or a method used to achieve an objective quickly, regardless of whether it is fair, right, or wise in long term. Putting this definition with the quote it made more since. To me it was kind of saying that the government is good but it choose things quickly no matter how it effects others. This goes back to what kind of government Thoreau thinks is just. To me it seems that he thinks that if a government did not govern in the since of achieving things quickly, that government would be the best.
Works Cited
Thoreau, David Henry. “Civil Disobedience.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp137-138
Monday, September 24, 2007
Stephen L. Carter: The Separation of Church and State
Does the First Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion?
In the beginning of this reading it explains the Clauses of the First Amendment. The first Clause is the Establishment Clause which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” which is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From this I thought it would answer my question to, does the first Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion? To this question and from the Clauses I would say the First Amendment protects religion from the state, but as I read on my answer was starting to change.
As I read further on there was something in the beginning that caught my eye and wanted to change my answer. In the beginning the example he gives about a Christian minister who ran a drug rehabilitation program. The thing that caught me though was at the end he says “but this program, he went on with something close to bitterness, could receive no state funding, because of its religious nature” (Carter 104). From this example Stephen talks about it make me think my answer is wrong to that question. So I thought well then the First Amendment protects the state from religion.
From this though I am not sure either my answers are more right then the other. I think depending on the situation the answer to the question could go both ways I think sometimes the First Amendment is protecting the state from religion and sometimes the First Amendment protects religion from the state.
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen L. "The Separation of Church and State". A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
In the beginning of this reading it explains the Clauses of the First Amendment. The first Clause is the Establishment Clause which is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” which is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Carter 103). From this I thought it would answer my question to, does the first Amendment protect religion from the state or the state from religion? To this question and from the Clauses I would say the First Amendment protects religion from the state, but as I read on my answer was starting to change.
As I read further on there was something in the beginning that caught my eye and wanted to change my answer. In the beginning the example he gives about a Christian minister who ran a drug rehabilitation program. The thing that caught me though was at the end he says “but this program, he went on with something close to bitterness, could receive no state funding, because of its religious nature” (Carter 104). From this example Stephen talks about it make me think my answer is wrong to that question. So I thought well then the First Amendment protects the state from religion.
From this though I am not sure either my answers are more right then the other. I think depending on the situation the answer to the question could go both ways I think sometimes the First Amendment is protecting the state from religion and sometimes the First Amendment protects religion from the state.
Works Cited
Carter, Stepehen L. "The Separation of Church and State". A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins,2006 pp 102-110.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince
Why Does Machiavelli praise skill in warfare in his opening pages? How does that skill aid a prince?
In the beginning of the reading, The Qualities of the prince by Nicclo Machiavelli, he talks a lot about how a prince should know nothing more then war. He says “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Machiavelli 37). This to me is the beginning of why Machiavelli praises skill in warfare. I say that because to me he is showing he believes that the most important thing for a prince to know is war. As he continues on with this sentence he says, “…it is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state” (Machiavelli 38). This part of the sentence really showed me why Machiavelli he praises skill in warfare because in this part of the sentence to me it seems that to him princes should not even give thought to luxuries because war is the most import. In other words to sum this up I think he praises skill in warfare because he believes war is the most important thing when it comes to a prince.
Having the skill for warfare aids a prince according to Machiavelli in a couple ways. One way he mentions “..a prince who does not understand military matters, besides the other misfortunes already noted, cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli 38). In other words to me this means understanding military can aid to a prince in the sense of his soldiers. If he knows the military his soldiers are able to trust him and the prince is able to trust them. Another way I thought showed how warfare aids a prince was when he mentions about knowing the land, from this he says “..a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize then for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (Machiavelli 39). From this I took that knowing warfare in the sense of land, it aids to a prince because knowing the land can not only have advantages for the prince but also to the people.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp35-51
In the beginning of the reading, The Qualities of the prince by Nicclo Machiavelli, he talks a lot about how a prince should know nothing more then war. He says “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (Machiavelli 37). This to me is the beginning of why Machiavelli praises skill in warfare. I say that because to me he is showing he believes that the most important thing for a prince to know is war. As he continues on with this sentence he says, “…it is evident that when princes have given more thought to personal luxuries than to arms, they have lost their state” (Machiavelli 38). This part of the sentence really showed me why Machiavelli he praises skill in warfare because in this part of the sentence to me it seems that to him princes should not even give thought to luxuries because war is the most import. In other words to sum this up I think he praises skill in warfare because he believes war is the most important thing when it comes to a prince.
Having the skill for warfare aids a prince according to Machiavelli in a couple ways. One way he mentions “..a prince who does not understand military matters, besides the other misfortunes already noted, cannot be esteemed by his own soldiers, nor can he trust them” (Machiavelli 38). In other words to me this means understanding military can aid to a prince in the sense of his soldiers. If he knows the military his soldiers are able to trust him and the prince is able to trust them. Another way I thought showed how warfare aids a prince was when he mentions about knowing the land, from this he says “..a prince who lacks this ability lacks the most important quality in a leader; because this skill teaches you to find the enemy, choose a campsite, lead troops, organize then for battle, and besiege towns to your own advantage” (Machiavelli 39). From this I took that knowing warfare in the sense of land, it aids to a prince because knowing the land can not only have advantages for the prince but also to the people.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolo. “The Qualities of the Prince.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. pp35-51
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)