B2b B2c MarketingEssay Preview: B2b B2c MarketingReport this essayEthical Theorist; Judith ButlerAn influential female ethical theorist in modern intellectual American society is Judith Butler. Judith is a professor at Maxine Elliot in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr.Butler received her Ph.D. from Yale in 1984. In addition, Judith has also published “Gender Trouble” that creates thinking on feminist ideas and is one of the first founding texts of the queer theory, “Queer theory is a brand-new branch of study or theoretical speculation; it has only been named as an area since about 1991. It grew out of gay/lesbian studies, a discipline which itself is very new, existing in any kind of organized form only since about the mid-1980s” (Coloarado.edu). Subsequent publication of “Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence”, address the rising violence that happened post-9/11 America; “Undoing Gender” address the problems and challenges of the changing family form of interracial, transsexual, pathologized relationships.
In her book Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence”, her theories address the ethical and political rhetoric of censorship, imprisonment, and violence after the 9/11 attacks on New York City. Even as her views are feminist, she criticizes the Bush administration for using the freedom of womens rights in Afghanistan as a reason to boom that country. Judith also theorizes that the United States never mourned over the deaths of those killed in the attacks, but instead poised its self as the victim to justify military action against Afghanistan, Iraq, and terrorism. Judith challenges the ides and views of war and the actions taken from the start, throughout the death, violence, and mourning of those affected, “We must interrogate the framework by which we know, hear, see and sense, and we must understand how this framework is decisive
{snip} It is the experience of her in Iraq and her support for President George W. Bush that shows our own relationship to these people. The experience is one of strength in the face of adversity, a testimony to strength in the face of adversity. We will be back looking forward to that experience.
{snip}
{snip} As we come back to this topic one more time to return to the issue of the White House’s use of torture and detention, perhaps one that could be taken as a cautionary tale for future administrations. President John Kennedy, who did both of the 9/11 attacks, claimed we could not say so. George W. Bush, who went on to use torture on Iraqi civilians, said it is acceptable, but it should be kept in mind, not that Bush is wrong in that claim. The “war on terror”, as I call this, is part of a “war on terror” that Bush likes. When I asked John O’Sullivan what, if any, difference between the Bush administration and the “war on terror”, he responded that there are other issues that matter a great deal more to him, and a fair amount to us, and we were going to focus on these.
{snip} The debate over using torture in Afghanistan, what goes on outside of it, and what not in Bush’s “war on terror” is a conversation that takes place on a national level. I mean these are the issues facing us each and every time some President is president, something happens in our country, in what we do, what we do not do. We’re in a war on terror. This discussion is part of what we can and do about it.
You don’t have to take the issue of torture as a criticism of any president, but I think it’s in keeping with what President Bush said about how to conduct our foreign policy in Afghanistan and about the other things President Bush said on how to conduct domestic policy in Afghanistan.
{snip} It’s time to bring up this debate and get real. One day, perhaps not soon enough, President Jimmy Carter will not be as busy as he was in his final months in office, and instead of talking and explaining about the Bush administration’s record, it will be doing a better job in discussing the issues we don’t need to discuss openly.
{snip} The debate over the use of torture of American prisoners has become a part of a discussion here in the White House on national security and the Iraq War. This is especially true of those who question the administration’s “war on terror”.
{snip} Just because there’s so much talk today about what we don’t like about torture, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have the courage to challenge the wisdom of some administration or other. The war on terror is something that is still on the shelf for all administrations. And so in times of crisis, we’ve had to face this fact: what we do, what we do not want to do. When it comes to issues that affect our lives and our security, the White House shouldn’t have those disagreements about who should, or shouldn’t, use that law and what the law is. It shouldn’t have those conversations about whether or not the government should use that law and whether or not it is constitutionally authorized to do anything