A Secret Life: Blog 4

As Ryszard Kuklinski continued his cooperation with the CIA, David Forden, codename Daniel, was given an option to move to Vienna and become the Chief of Station. The move would put him out of the Gull, codename for Kuklinski, case. Daniel decided to go alone. Once Daniel had removed himself from the case, the CIA found that they had a significant problem on their hands. They soon realized that, “With Daniel now stationed in Vienna, it would be impractical for him to continue the highly personal correspondence with Kuklinski…the CIA felt it was too risky to stop them [the letters], and the agency did not want even to suggest to Kuklinski that Daniel was no longer at Langley, for fear it would concern or distract him. The Soviet Division thus assigned a group of officers…to produce letters under Daniel’s name,” (165). The CIA has decided that instead of threatening the continuation of the correspondence with Kuklinski, that they would lie to him, or at least keep the truth from him. This fits in with the society first rule that has been exhibited throughout this story. Now it does seem a little shocking that they would essentially flat out lie to one of their best sources because if he were ever to find out, the consequences could be disastrous. However, I’m sure that Kuklinski would have made the same choice if the roles had been reversed due to his belief that the needs of the many come before the needs of the few. On March 22, 1979, Kuklinski learned of the death of his close friend Barbara Jakubowska. She had been a close friend of both Kuklinski and his wife, Hanka. Along with the death of Barbara, Hanka had developed, “arthritis and back pain, which had been diagnosed as spinal degeneration, had forced her to quit her job as a factory bookkeeper,” and “Bogdan had gone to trial in the case involving the pedestrian he had struck. He was convicted, fined, and received a suspended sentence of one year,” (170). These incidents were greatly disturbing to Kuklinski but this did not alter his cooperation with the CIA. In fact, he sent seventy documents with more than 800 images. He wrote to “Daniel” about Barbara’s death, and told him that whe was buried at Wolski cemetery, only 50 meters away from where he had first met the Americans. He wrote, “‘Passing by there, I feel at this moment my only encouragement that our road, which had its good beginning at this very spot, has still not ended,’” (171).
The idea that family and personal issues are lower on the scale than societal issues is shown again when he wrote to Daniel in September of that year, “‘I see ahead many unattained goals, both the great ones related to Polish aspirations for liberty, and the lesser ones pertaining to family and myself,” (177). Kuklinski has straight out told us once again, that his own personal issues have less importance to him than the issues involving the liberation of his country.

A Secret Life: Blog 3

Ryszard Kuklinski has now been feeding information to the CIA under the noses of the Soviet Union for almost 3 years now and the choices that he has been making are tremendous. Among other things, he has had to turn down higher positions so that he can stay in a contactable state for the CIA. Instead of focusing on leveling himself, in a chance to get access to more important documents, he is playing it safe and deciding not to take any chances to allow the CIA to remain uninformed while the Soviets create plans to commence a “Hot war”. Kuklinski has also been “caught” on a couple of occasions creating evidence for or taking packages from the CIA. When he was taking pictures of classified materials, a man walked in on him and after the man left the building and ran to wherever, “Kuklinski considered taking his life: He had his pistol and his pill,” (107). About 4 months later, Kuklinski received a car drop from the CIA and was immediately caught in the headlights of another vehicle. He managed to escape his pursuers, and in his next letter to the CIA, he asked if he should carry a gun on him during the car exchanges. The CIA responded to him, “Although the decision is one only you will be able to make if circumstances ever require it…we suggest that any other possibility for escape and flight should be preferred,” (116). In both of these cases Kuklinski kept to his morals and kept his sense about him, telling himself that it wasn’t worth killing himself on a presumption, and that using force against government officials will only prolong and intensify any attempt to get him and his family out of Poland.

Kuklinski’s ethics are what make him do what he is doing. In one of the first letters that he wrote to the CIA he said, “In the beginning I asked myself If I had the moral right to do this…It was a dilemma, my moral dilemma, but I became convinced that I not only had the right, I had the moral obligation,” (xv). He is convinced that what he is doing is the right thing to do, no matter what evidence may arise to the contrary. Although, he is willing to sacrifice his life to save the society, he is still greatly concerned about his family. The CIA wrote to him saying, “We have pledged to assist you and the members of your family in any adversity, to the very best of our ability, and we would like to be in a position to honor that promise,” (111). Kuklinski asked the CIA to allow safe passage to the west for his family, and possibly himself, if the need should arise. Kuklinski has not only put society before family, but he has made the ultimate sacrifice and placed society and family above his own life. His request for a suicide pill was made so that, if a problem should occur, he would be able to die a hero rather than live in shame. Also, his death would put his family out of harm’s way. Kuklinski’s morals and ethics have been strengthened to the point that he would take his own life for the good of the family and for society.

On The Waterfront

In the movie, On the Waterfront, many characters have to learn to deal with ethical and moral dilemmas, and while they may think that this is not important in the beginning, their choices and beliefs can be easily swayed by strong cases to each side. Many characters have to make choices such as Doogan’s promise to the father that he would testify against the mob, and Edy telling her father that she wasn’t going back to the convent. But the main dilemmas that occur come through the eyes of Terry. While many individuals have varying views on the definitions of traitor and whistleblower, Terry is the only person who truly changes their beliefs. Throughout the movie Terry is being swayed by the beliefs of Johnny, Charlie and the mob and by the beliefs of Edy and the father. The mob tries to tell Terry that a traitor is someone who would testify against them and that a traitor’s life would be worse than hell. However, Edy but mainly the father finally persuade Terry that a traitor is truly someone who turn their backs on the least of men, thus on God, in order to gain for their self. This message hits hard at home when Terry talks to Charlie about how he could have been somebody and not a bum. The mob convinced Terry to throw a fight against someone who he could have beaten, because they had money on the other guy. Terry tells Charlie that Charlie should have looked after him, since he was his baby brother. But instead, Charlie took the low road, gave up on his brother in order to have money, power and influence. Terry realizes that he can’t let the mob control others the way that they controlled him. So, he decides to go on the offensive and take them down in court. We see throughout the movie, with the character of Terry, that while beliefs may never leave one’s mind, they can be quickly and easily changed by any slight event/motive.

So, my personal beliefs do not match up to well with the mob's (thankfully) but I would generally agree with the idea's that the father is trying to put across. I say that a “tattle tale” is someone who gets others in trouble even when what they are doing isn’t hurting anybody. When you give information on the mob, or a bully on the playground, you aren’t being a “tattle tale” you are standing up for the right morals. However, if that bully is climbing over the fence and leaving the playground and you tell on him, them you should be considered “tattle tale” because he didn’t do anything to harm you. Now, what that bully might be doing may not be morally correct, it is not your place to fix all that is wrong with the world. As I have been told many times before, “keep your nose out of other people’s business”. I personally would probably keep an eye on them and if they did anything really bad I would tell a person of authority. (That is, these days I would. In elementary school, I was the school’s “tattle tale” and I wouldn’t let anyone do anything bad. If anything ever went wrong, I would tell a teacher immediately.) You might say I was a jerk, but I believed that I was helping those kids stay out of trouble. However, I would eventually take it too far, and a kid would get mad at me and…ya…you don’t need my life story… Overall, while standing up for what you believe to be the right thing is usually good, I’ve learned from personal experience that when you get too involved in other people’s business, it never ends up well for a "tattle tale".

Mrs F's first,and hopefully last, question on All My Sons

Question: As we read/discuss All My Sons, consider how many of the characters make choices on how to act depending on whether it benefits their family or society. In your blog post this week, discuss how characters in the play decide what is more important (needs of family or needs of society). Please cite examples from the play to support your answer (1 paragraph). In your second paragraph, discuss your personal opinions on the matter. When is it appropriate to put the needs of your family before society (and vice versa)?

The need for family is unbelievable. Family has always been an important institution throughout history. But while family may be something that you need to keep intact, making sacrifices to the good of society is not a fair way to keep your family together. In fact, it usually tears families apart. Arthur Miller shows us, in his play All My Sons, through potential and actual consequences that needs of family cannot be an excuse for overlooking the rules of society.
One’s actions have consequences that have been set by society, and there is no reason to overlook those rules, not even family. In All My Sons, Sue Bayliss is the wife of a doctor, Jim Bayliss, and they are neighbors to the Keller family. When Ann breaks the news to Sue that she and Chris are engaged, Sue is glad but she has a personal request of the new couple. Sue wants Ann and Chris to move away. She told Ann,
“I’m very serious. My husband is very unhappy with Chris around…My husband has a family, dear. Every time he has a session with Chris he feels as though he’s compromising by not gibing up everything for research…He’s driving my husband crazy…and I’m at the end of my rope on it!” (44-45).
Sue is upset that Jim wants to help society instead of focus on his family. She disregards the fact that Jim could discover something important and save lives, to focus solely on the fact that her children need a father; one who can support them and not spend too much time working. While the consequences of Jim’s potential consequences are great they do not compare to the decision that Joe Keller made when he allowed the cracked heads to be shipped out and then blamed it all on his partner, Steve Deever. Joe told his son, Chris, “For you, a business for you!” (70). Joe’s focus on family is so extreme that he was unwilling to stand up to the consequences that he deserved simply because he committed the crime to help his family. Sue and Joe have a common bond in their love for their family, but they are willing to allow society to suffer in order to keep their family intact. So they decided to overlook the rules of society simply because their family would have been harmed.
The sentence above bugs me. If you commit a crime your family will be harmed, emotionally and physically, no matter what you do. This idea that Joe and Sue have could eventually escalate into the thought that you can do whatever you want and ignore the consequences all because you “did it for your family”. For heavens sake, Joe Keller, MAN UP!! You allowed faulty parts to be shipped from your store, you “didn’t think that they would be installed”, you essentially provided the instruments for the death of 21 young men who were serving their country in the war. Whatever you say, you screwed up. So admit it and deal with the consequences that society has. Go to jail. Do the right thing; unless you’re not man enough to take the blame, of which you accused Steve. I believe that Joe is using his family as his excuse for the mistakes that he made. I also, even though it sounds horrible, believe that Joe Keller’s suicide was a copout on his part. He couldn’t face what he had done. He couldn’t look anyone in the face and tell him or her that he had made a mistake and that he would take the consequences, so he shot himself. Now, I agree that it is sad that Joe killed himself, but it comes as a larger problem to me that he did so because he couldn’t handle the pressure society had put on him. When someone relies on his family, or uses them as an excuse, to get themselves through every hard spot in life is the sign of a weak individual. I believe flat out that society’s rules cannot be overlooked for the needs of the family.