American Dream analysis

· What does the American Dream look like in the 1950s? Was it attainable then? Is it attainable now? (slight refernce to: What societal dysfunctions impede the American Dream?)
I don't really know what the American Dream looked like back in the 1950s, as I am not a history buff. But who's to say the American Dream is attainable if there isn't a concret definition of what the American Dream is; and I'm not refering to the Webster's definition of the American Dream. What I mean by definiton is what the American Dream meant to that generation, to that decade, to the specific ethnic group, to that specific individual; it's definition at the time. Think about it. The American Dream is just a generalized label to summerize the general "dream", as it (the American Dream)has had the tendency morph, shift and change through the passage of time and by the variety of dreamers.tter life for them (Durning the Roaring 20's the American Dream was more less based on riches and fame, for immigrants it was achieving stablity and a "better" life for themselves, for Afrian Americans it was achieving a greater equality; again, not all were nessisarily measureable. So if there is no concrete definition of the American Dream how can society measure it's attainablity. It's not nessiarily a S.M.A.R.T goal, for it all depends on the dreamer or, in other words, perspective. Sure, societal dysfunctions CAN impede the American Dream, but in some case it is the motive, the SOURCE behind AN American Dream. Emphasis on the AN; again it is all defined by perspective.
So no. It wasn't attainable then and isn't attainable now, because the attainabilty can't nessisarily be measured and realtisitcally speaking, NOT everyone maybe able to sucessfully attain it.

· Is there ever a time when a human life does not have value? Is life a right or privilage?
Well, for one, a human life is not a tangiable object; it is not able to be purchased. It does not morph or change over time. A human life remains a human life. Therefore there is no possible way the value of a human life, or any human life for that matter, can diminish in value. It is a right given to us through birth and creation, and if it was a privilage it would not be delt with by the hands of a, just as equal, human being with the same right to a human life. Perry and Dick attempt to play God, and take away four innocent lives by gun point. Why? What was the point behind it? Maybe blood-lust; maybe having the power to chose whose life is valuable and worthy of its exisitence, playing God, gives them satisfaction and makes them feel potent. However, this does not justify their "right" to pick and choose whose life is valuable and/or if it is their duty to end those lives, because there is no "right" or duty in which an individual can choose what human lives have value. I don't recall a human life guide book in which there's a statment that says we as humans are able to decipher amongst each other who is valube and who is not. Yeah, no. Humans don't have that kind of right, privilage, or power to do so. And if we want to get religious-based I would like to direct you to the Bible, the guidelines to living for some individuals, states "We shall not murder." Specifically, the sixth commandment. Humans simply do not possess the authoirty nor the power to do so, to choose who has the right to live or die. Think about it. If humans had this notion in that every they all had that very right individuals, society, the world as a whole would be corrupt. Murders and blood spill everywhere. And what would the criteria behind this? Every individual would have their own standards and criteria. So no. A human individual's life is equal in value to any other human life and will remain equal in value. Life is a right. No one has the privilage in ending it. Just the free will to do so.