Monday, March 29, 2010

Inquiry#5 The Clan of One-Breasted Women

Terry Williams' "The Clan of One-Breasted Women" is about the affects that nuclear testing had on her family. Her mother and grandmother, and several other people within their Nevada community, died from cancer. Williams' believed that the nuclear testing that the country did in Nevada during the late 1950's was responsible for making people sick.

I really liked the part that said "Public health was secondary to national security." "Gentlemen we must not let anything interfere with these series of tests, nothing." I feel like almost 60 years later we are still in the same boat. Public health remains secondary to national security even though public health is much more of a concern, and it kills so many more people than any national security threat.

I also liked the part when she talked about the woman who testified in court saying that she didn't want money. She just wanted testing to stop in order to spare others lives. You can complain about something until you are blue in the face, but sadly, the government and people in power will ignore you until it is too late. To me, the fact that she didn't want compensation means that she really deserved it. The testing had to have played a part in her family dying from cancer.

Why is there so much red tape involved in anything that is actually good for our country, yet when it comes to starting a war, nuclear testing, or anything with big money backing it, we never question a thing?

I think that my question kind of answers itself. Anything that has money behind it will prevail over the good. And, people don't care about something until it affects them. I know I'm guilty of it too. It just seems like we all need to start thinking about the long term affects of our decisions.

1 comment:

James J C Bellard said...

That's an awfully cynical view, that government's and organizations with money behind them will prevail over good, a view that Obama clearly opposes. Nonetheless, I have to agree with that. Politicians have to be manipulative or else they don't win elections, so we end up with corrupt people at the top. Throughout history, any change for the good has always come from the bottom up.

Generally the people who oppose Obama really oppose. They see him as this demon wearing human skin, and telling the people what they want to hear, then doing the opposite. I don't disagree with them, but I think they give Obama too much credit. What, is Obama the first politician who's lied and manipulated people? In a "More Perfect Union" He shares his vision of what America continue to do just that, form a more perfect union. I don't know how much of what he said, Obama actually believes, but that's not the point. In a nation where a corrupt government can test nukes while disregarding public health, we indeed need to form a more perfect union.