Blog #24 - Free speech in times of war?

During the Great War, the United States went to great lengths to stop people from expressing their views on the war and the draft. According to historian Sean Dennis Cashman, Wilson that war "required illiberalism at home to reinforce the men at the front. We couldn't fight Germany and maintain the ideals of Government that all thinking men shared...once led into war, [Americans] will forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance" (505).

So, in order to set Europe free from tyranny, the government had to restrict more of Americans' rights. Historian Howard Zinn has written at length that part of this suppression was done to keep Americans from expressing their anti-war sentiments/feelings:

- Why should we get into a war that we have no interests in? This is only about European colonialists, not U.S. interests;

- Why should I be drafted to go protect France or Belgium? (only 73,000 volunteered in the first 6 weeks after Wilson declared war on Germany in April 1917);

- Why should we spend millions and millions of our tax money to do this?;

- Why should we join a war that current French soldiers are beginning to mutiny against? (in essence, why we should we join a losing fight?);

- Why should we break away from our tradition of isolationism? It's served us well for this long (if it ain't broke, don't fix it);

So Wilson and Congress together got tough on this kind of anti-war talk and anti-draft interference w/ the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. The Supreme Court affirmed that we do NOT have the right to free speech as long as it creates a "clear and present danger" (much like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre like Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. so eloquently phrased it in the 1919 court decision, Schenck vs. U.S.).

A speech like this one by Eugene Debs is the kind of thing that got him in trouble and thrown in the big house:

"Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. ...the
working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme
sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish their
corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It
is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they
alone make peace. They are continually talking about their patriotic
duty. It is not their but your patriotic duty that they are concerned
about. There is a decided difference. Their patriotic duty
never takes them to the firing line or chucks them into the trenches."
(emphasis added)

*Debs was sentenced to jail for this speech and while in jail ran for President under the Socialist Party for which he received almost one million votes in 1912 and in 1920! Website for Debs: http://www.eugenevdebs.com/

But my question still remains:
1. is questioning your country's conduct during a war o.k.?
2. Should asking questions about how the war is conducted, about the tactics being used (torture, waterboarding, etc.), about how the goals are being met (or if they're being met at all), or is it all worth the sacrifice of all the young men and women's lives??
3. Is this line of questioning during war time o.k. or does it make you unpatriotic? Why?

Due Monday, October 26. 200 words minimum.

Blog #23 - Just War Theory applied to Spanish American War

This past week, we've examined the Just War Theory and discussed how America's entry into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opinions differed as to whether or not the U.S. has conducted itself in a just manner during the war - questions about torture, excessive force and the death of civilians made the issue a tough one to make a decision.

Here are the criteria we discussed:

The principles of a just war include jus ad bellum, the right to go to war, and jus in bello, right conduct in war. You will see these principles fleshed out in some of the following bullets below:
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants.

- Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target. (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm)

Given what we've read and seen about the Spanish American War, how does this war fit with the criteria that we'd discussed? Consider the following:

1. How did the war begin? - U.S.S. Maine exploded in Havana Harbor but the cause of the blast was unknown, though at the time, an official inquiry determined it to be a mine.1 American newspapers drummed up support for war (fueled by yellow journalism - sensational, if sometimes false, stories and attention grabbing headlines). President McKinley issued an ultimatum to Spain on March 29th to leave Cuba (which it didn't agree to do until April 1st). But when the war was declared, had the U.S. exhausted all options before going to war?

- When Congress voted to declare war on April 19 (311 to 6 in the House and 42 to 35 in the Senate), it adopted the Teller Amendment in which it stated that it had no intention: "to exercise jurisdiction or control over Cuba except in a pacification role and promised to leave the island as soon as the war was over." 1

2. Was peace the ultimate goal? However, during that summer of 1898, business and political interests work on keeping the Philippines once the war is won w/ Spain. American interests brought Emilio Agunaldo, exiled Filipino leader, back to the islands and he heads a new Filipino government which declared its own independence in June and approved a Constitution in November. The American Anti-Imperialist League was created to fight the annexation of the Philippines.

A three year war with the Filipinos lasted until 1902 with 4,200 American dead and 200,000 Filipino civilians and around 20,000 soldiers dead. 1

Puerto Rico still remains in the U.S.'s hands. Cuba gained its official independence in 1902 after President Teddy Roosevelt decided to allow them to declare it earlier than expected. But the U.S. exercised control over Cuba to supervise its foreign and economic affairs b/c of the Platt Amendment. It did so in 1906 and then again later until President Franklin Roosevelt initiated the Good Neighbor Policy w/ Latin American countries in 1933. 2

Pick one of the two questions above and answer it using info from the websites, the video on TR, and your readings.

Due Tuesday, October 20, 150 words minimum.

Please note that there is a quiz on Wednesday, Oct. 21, on Ch. 11, Sec. 1. Take notes on the section - you can use them on the quiz. Same rules apply like the Ch. 7 quiz.

1. Library of Congress - http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/chronology.html

2. Cuba by Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Modern_history

Additional links:

3. http://www.spanamwar.com/ - A host of stuff

4. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/sawhtml/sawsp1.html - film footage from the Span-Am War and the Filipino War as well. However, Edison had some of the Filipino War footage "recreated" back at his place in New Jersey. This one in particular is rather amusing - http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/sawmp/1355.mov

5. Anti-imperialism league writings by Mark Twain, Andrew Carnegie and others. http://www.antiimperialist.com/webroot/PEOPLEdocuments/Membership/publishingsAIL.html

Blog #22 - Flat tax or progressive tax?

Near the end of this week, we discussed the 16th Amendment and the income tax - its fairness and unfairness. Its opponents have proposed a flat tax that everyone pays the same rate across the board: 20%. That way, if you earn more, you technically pay more. So, in some ways it sounds progressive.

The argument for the flat tax focuses on several arguments:
1. It eliminates special- interests by treating all taxpayers equally. Taxpayers will no longer be able to "scam the system by hiring enough lawyers, accountants and lobbyists."
2. It will boost economic growth by allowing businesses and investors to invest more money (saved by not giving as much money in taxes) into other businesses and ventures.
3. It eliminates the capital gains tax, the estate tax (other people call it the "death tax"), and double taxes on savings (taxed once when you earn it and it's deposited into the bank and then twice at the end of the year as part of your income though it already is in your bank account).
4. It's amazingly simple. Household income tax forms are now done on a postcard. It also treats all businesses the same: "Microsoft to a hot dog stand would play by the same rules."

Arguments for the progressive tax include:
1. All Americans benefit from two of our government's responsibilities, protection (police, firefighters, public health, military) and empowerment (roads, public education, banking system for loans and economic stability, SEC for the stock market, courts, national parks, public buildings, etc.), and they should be available to everyone. We are financially responsible to maintain these so that they may be used for the common good. These protections are maintained through taxes.
2. The wealthy (corporations, investors and other wealthy individuals) pay more into the system because "our taxes create and sustain, [and] empower the wealthy in myriad ways to create their wealth." In other words, they have benefited from the system in place, they should pay to maintain it.

"Consider Bill Gates...Though he has undoubtedly benefited from his unusual
intelligence and business acumen, he could not have created or sustained his
personal wealth without the common wealth [of the United States]. The legal
system protected Microsoft's intellectual property and contracts. The
tax-supported financial infrastructure (phones, electricity, Internet) enabled
him to access capital markets and trade his stock in a market in which investors
have confidence. He built his company with many employees educated in public
schools and universities. Tax-funded research helped develop computer science
and the internet..." and so on.

3. The wealthy are morally obligated to sustain the American system b/c they benefit more from it than the average American. "Ordinary people rarely use the courts; most of the courts are used for corporate law and contract disputes." Therefore, the rich pay more than the poor or middle class b/c the rich utilize the system more often to create and sustain their wealth.

So, I think we have two very persuasive arguments here, but I think we're missing the real questions that we should be asking. The questions we should be asking are:
1. What are we spending our money on?
2. Why are we spending so much of our money instead of letting the American people spend it? 3. Why do we have such a huge national debt?
4. What can we do about it? Are you willing to take on this muckraking project w/ me?

We can educate Groves H.S. about the amount of money spent by our government. We can pressure our Congressmen and women about spending too much. You are the future voters. Get educated now about the National Debt.

More on the progressive tax from the Rockridge Institute - http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/progressive-taxation-some-hidden-truths/?forPrint=1

More on the flat tax from the Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

Blog #21 - Has racism ended now that Obama is President?

The United Kingdom's Times Online collected headlines and snippets from major newspapers around the world and their reactions to Obama's election and inauguration. For instance, France's Le Monde proclaims that "Obama's victory ushers in a new American dream." Egypt's newspaper states that "World hopes for 'less arrogant' America."

See the snippets here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5089550.ece#

Here are reports by the New York Times from all over the world:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/reactions-from-around-the-world/

To quote President-elect Obama on election night, he said, "Hello, Chicago. If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, tonight is your answer. It’s a long time coming, but because of what we did on this day, at this defining moment, change has come to America."

Very high expectations have come with Barack Obama to the White House. Some see his election as a sign that America reaching a new height in race relations. Others see Obama's election as the banishment of old time racism. Yet others acknowledge, like many of you have done in our class discussion this week, that racism has certainly not disappeared from the American political or cultural landscape.

The questions for you are:

1. Since we've agreed that racism hasn't disappeared in America, where do we see it rear its ugly head nowadays? Please give some specific examples.

2. What will be a future sign to you that racism has diminished even more than it has today?

(optional additional question) 3. Is it possible that there is a built-in or institutional racism that so subtlely perpetuates the economic gap between whites and other minorities that whites can't see it or won't acknowledge its existence? Or is that just a bunch of baloney?

Blog is due by class on Monday, October 5th - 150 words minimum.

If you want to dig deeper into two different viewpoints, check out:

1. Tim Wise at http://www.timwise.org/ . He bills himself as an anti-racist writer, speaker and educator and has been seen recently on CNN in the past few weeks b/c backers of President Obama have charged that some of the criticism leveled at him have been racist in nature.

2. The American Civil Rights Institute founded by Ward Connerly http://www.acri.org/- despite its name, the man behind this organization has been pushing for state referendums around the country that end preferential treatment based upon race. It's motto is "Race has no place in American life or law." They just got the Arizona state senate to pass a bill that would let AZ voters alter their state constitution by ending any special gender or race considerations in the 2010 election.

Check both out and you be the judge.