A Most Wated Man

So far, A Most Wanted Man by John le Carre focuses on the lives of two very different characters. One is a Chechen Muslim boy named Issa. Extremely thin, he shows up at boxing champion Melik's house with a note saying that he is a medical student in need of a place to stay. After much hesitation, Melik lets him stay for a little while. He slowly learns that Issa was in prison and escaped with the help of some "friends." He had "a beaten body" and "bruised legs"(Carre 14). Melik's mother suggests that he might have been accused of something because of his race, saying: "Everybody persecutes Chechens except us...Putin persecutes them and Mr. Bush encourages him. As long as Putin calls it his war on terror, he can do with the Chechens whatever he wishes" (Carre 8). Then he becomes very sick, leaving Melik completely clueless as to what to do. The other is an English Banker Tommy Brue, a very successful man with a dirty secret within the vaults of his bank. When his father had run the bank, he had run a clean practice, except for his involvement with the Lipizzaners, part of the Russian mafia. After the death of his father, Brue moved the bank from Vienna to Hamburg to prevent problems with the police. Now, years later he gets a phone call from a lawyer saying "My client instructs me to pass his best wishes to a Mr... Mr. Lipizzaner... I think your bank knows the Lipizzaners very well" (Carre 24). She wants to speak to Brue as soon as possible. Not knowing what else to do, Brue schedules an appointment the lawyer.

Both Brue and Issa have to suffer for something that they had no control over. Issa suffers because government officials have made his race a scape-goat for the war on terror. Brue suffers from decisions his father made for reasons unknown to Brue. These difficulties hardy seem fair. In the first part of A Most Wanted Man, Carre starts to show that life is anything but fair, and that anyone who thinks it is needs a serious reality check. He also shows that people should always think about how the decisions they make will affect others. One can only guess if Brue's father new the kind of trouble he might cause for his sons when he started banking for the Lipizzaners. If is doubtful though, that the end of the Lipizzaners' affair is in sight

My Life in France: Fin

Alas, all good things must come to an end. As Julia Child was close to reaching 80, her dear friend and co-author Simca died, 3 years after Jean, her husband. Paul Child, who was 10 years older than Julia, was having heart problems and could no longer travel and lived in a nursing home. With all of this in mind, Julia had one last decision to make. Should she give up their little French house in Providence, where they lived many months out of the year to escape from the business of the United States? Julia's niece, Phila didn't want her to give up the place. She explains "The house was filled with familiar smells and memories" (330). The thought of giving up the one last safe haven that the family really had was a sad thought, but Julia decided that it was just impractical to keep it any longer. Julia writes, "Without Paul to share the house with, or my grande cherie Simca, or all of our favorite friends and family, it had come time to relinquish La Pitchoune" (329). The place was not what it had once been, not without her friends or family. Julia felt that it was better to let the place go. But she was not letting go of France. She comments "France was my spiritual homeland: it had become part of me, and I part of it" (332). No matter what happened, she would always hold on the France and what she had learned there.

Throughout the book, Julia Child has been faced with many ethical decisions. The decision to let go of the house was probably the least difficult to make, given that almost all of her French friends were dead and her husband was unable to travel. Yet it was still a big decision and one that was hard to give the final ok on, since the place held so many memories. Julia couldn't have passed it on to anyone in her family, because the land was only leased, not owned. So I guess I agree with her decision, and I doubt that there are many, if any that disagree. But no matter if we know that it is right or wrong, decisions like these are always hard, because you are giving up a piece of your live.

"My Life in France" Post 5

As Julia Child and her friend Simca were both enjoy a temporary stay in Washington DC, they decided to visit their new publishing company, Houghton Mifflin. The girls are nowhere near being done, having only two sections completed (sauces and poultry), but they already had over 700 pages devoted to instructions and recipes. A few days after giving their manuscript to Houghton Mifflin, the chefs received back their manuscript back along with a letter. The letter said "...What we could envision as saleable...is perhaps a series of smaller books devoted to particular portions of the meal...certainly less elaborate that your present volumes, which, although we are sure that they are foolproof, are undeniably demanding in time and focus" (229). The American public, it seemed, was more interested in a quick, easy meal, than a nice, elaborate, home made one. At first Child and Simca wanted to abandon the company in search of one that would publish their entire book, but after much thought decided that it would be better to create a shorter book for the time being, then later publish their big book. They replied to the letter by saying: "Everything would be of the simpler sort...and emphasis would always be on how to prepare ahead, and how to reheat" (231). Even though it meant putting their dream cook book on hold, the women realized that there would not be a huge audience for their cookbook, especially since the two authors were unheard of.

I do not know if I agree with their decision or not. I think that people are happiest and do their best work if they are following their dreams, but on the other hand some things are just impractical. By saying no to Houghton Mifflin, they would have been forced to search for a new publisher. The chance of finding a publisher who would be willing to publish such a large book (when completed it would be well over 1,000 pages) was very slim. And there was the question of would the book sell in a country devoted to its TV dinners and McDonalds. But do these risks outweigh the dreams of the two women? I honestly don't know.

"My Life In France" post 4

After successfully starting up their own mini cooking school, Julia Child, and her friends Simca and Louisette began working on a cookbook of their very own. Simca and Louisette had looked in to the cookbook idea in the past, and had even found a potential publisher named Ives Washburn, who had already published a (very unsuccessful) mini book called What's Cooking in France. Washburn "...had gone into publishing as a hobby; he knew little about cooking, did little advertising for his book, and was said to keep slipshod accounts" (149). When the three women had finished a chapter of their book (sauces), they sent it to him, along with a letter of explanation. Child says "He did not reply to my letter. Nor did he respond to our chapter on sauces, which I sent him by diplomatic pouch" (150). With no word from Washburn, the three had to make a decision, whether to look for a new publisher, or remain with Washburn. Through her correspondence with the wife of magazine writer Bernard de Voto, Julia Child found another publisher named Houghton Mifflin, who was very well respected in the United States. But when Child suggested this idea to Simca and Louisette "...Louisette balked: she felt that we had an obligation to keep working with Ives Washburn. I disagreed, saying that, in light of no advance, no contact, and, lately, no communication with him whatsoever, we had no obligation to the publisher" (152). After much debate, the three did finally switch publishers, but Louisette stopped working directly on the book, only giving advice when asked by Simca or Julia Child.

The three chefs must make an ethical choice, whether or not to remain with Ives Washburn. The differing opinion about whether or not they had an obligation to Washburn was the heart of their disagreement. I do not think that they had an obligation to Washburn. If a publisher is really interested in someone's writing, then they should stay in contact and read and reply to letters and excerpts sent to them. It isn't like Washburn was extremely busy, if he only published as a hobby. If you want clients, you should treat them well.

"My Life in France" Ethical Decisions

During Julia Child's time in France, she was very fortunate not to be confronted by many difficult decisions. She does talk about a friend of hers named Lee Brady, who worked at the US Embassy in France. In 1950, Brady was assigned to work at the Public Affairs Office in Indochina (Vietnam). This meant that he would be taking orders from the emperor Boa Dai, seen by the rest of the world as a puppet for the French. Child tells the reader "... a most difficult and dangerous assignment indeed. He would be forced to work with the Boa Dai regime, which had not been freely chosen by the majority of the citizens (104). Not only was Brady putting himself at risk by working for an unpopular government, but he was also going against the American ideals that he had grown up with, the ideas of voting for a strong leader. Child points out that "What was an emissary of the US government supposed to say when the Communist claimed, correctly, that his government supported a puppet, dictator and horror?" (104). It seemed like the wrong choice from many angles, but for Brady his only other option was to quit. He chose to go to Indochina in the end, though what became of him when the US got involved in the Vietnam War is not mentioned in this book.

I think that Brady made the wrong decision to go to Indochina. Not only was he not following his own morals and ideas, but he was also putting himself in danger by supporting an unpopular government in a country that was on the brink of civil war. It does not seem fair though that the only other option was to resign his position and find a new job. I can Kind of understand why he chose to do what he did, but in hindsight I do not agree with his decision.

On the Waterfront

Throughout the entire movie "On the Waterfront," Terry is constantly plagued by the question of whether or not he should testify in court against the mob, or remain quiet. During the first part of the movie, Terry feels very strongly about not testifying. He feels that if he does, he would be a traitor, betraying his brother Charlie and others in the mob. He outright refuses to say anything to the police on multiple occasions. But as more people are killed by standing up to the mob, including Charlie, Terry's views begins to change. He starts to realize that testifying in court is not an act of treason, but a step that must be taken if he ever hoped to end the reign of terror the mob created on the waterfront. The rest of the workers on the waterfront thought he was a traitor too when he testified, but slowly they too begin to see him as an icon for change.

I think that Terry made the right choice in the end. Keeping silent about the mob was hurting lots of people. I think in the end the safety of the workers and the ability to speak freely was more important than the possibility of you being seen as a traitor. But I can't say for sure what I would have done in Terry's position. It was very dangerous to stand up to the mob, as we can see from Joey and Doogan. I guess in the end it all comes down to which is more important, your safety or the freedom of the waterfront workers.

Ethical Decisions in All My Sons

The play All My Sons by Arthur Miller shows two very different views on the same ethical question based on their experiences and situation. Joe Keller was born with very little, forced to struggle to make a name for himself. He spent 40 years building up the business he has now and it has become almost everything he has. That coupled with the fact that he does not want his son to have to go through what he went through gives him the motivation to do whatever he has to do to save the business. As he tells his son Chris "You lay forty years into a business and they knock you out in five minutes, what could I do, let them take forty years, let them take my life away?" (69). This desperation he feels to keep his business running motivates him to make the decision to ship the cracked cylinders, even though he knew that they could be dangerous. He puts his family before society. Chris on the other hand has had a very easy life, never having to work for anything. His experience in the war also instills in him empathy for those you do not know. He can not see beyond the fact that his father's actions resulted in the death of 21 men. As he explains to his father "I was dying everyday and you were killing my boys and you did it for me? What the hell do think I was thinking of the Goddam business?" (70). He values society over family. He is unable to see the business side of the issue, making what his father did into an awful crime. These differences form a brutal conflict which results in the death of Joe.

Even though I don't support his actions, I think it is unfair to judge Joe by his decisions until you understand his background and motivation. What he thinks is right could be very different from what his son or the rest of society thinks is right. Different experiences change people in different ways and can affect who they place first, society or family. I personally believe that in the majority of cases it is better to place society above family. Every person has their own family, their own story and their own right to live. Yet occasions arise when family does come first. It depends on the situation you are placed in and what your options are. Therefore I believe that it is impossible to say for sure that either family or society should come first.