Blog #26 - How has the Michigan economy affected you or your family?

There have been a lot of dire economic issues hammering the state of Michigan during the past 7-8 years. IN September 2009, Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country at 15.3% (North and South Dakota were the lowest at 4.3%).1 However, this 15.3% is still not the state's highest rate on record which occurred in November 1982 in which it peaked at 16.9%. 2 This recession of 1978-1982 was caused by inflation, high interest rates, high fuel prices, and hit the Big 3 companies hard. The only state hit harder with unemployment in this time period was West Virginia with 18.3% in March 1983.

According to the Consumer Price Index, from the summer of 2008 to the summer of 2009, prices have gone up about 1.7% on all goods sampled. Overall, the cost of food at home went up 3%, fruits and veggies went up 6.6% and meat and poultry went up 3.3%. Fuel and heating oil increased by 6%, and even clothes for the whole family shot up between 8 - 20%.

While many Americans are losing their jobs and the prices are continuing to rise, disposable incomes ( the money leftover to spend after the bill are paid, food is bought, and money is put in savings) begin to shrink, it starts a cyclical process. People buy less, and that affects companies who may have to lay off workers.

Please share you or your family's stories with us in this tough Michigan recession. How has the economy affected your family? Do you buy less? Do your parents and family give fewer gifts at holidays? Do they make you pay for things more often instead of just giving you what you want? Have you gotten a job to help out?

Due Thursday, November 12th. 200 word minimum.


Sources:
1. Unemployment stats: http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm
2. Highs and lows http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
3. CPI Report 2009 - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf

Blog #25 - Women's Rights - The 1920s

In 1920, America finally approved women's right to vote with the passage of the 19th Amendment. Now, women aged 21 and over could vote in all elections.

The movement began in 1848 at Seneca Falls, NY where women gathered to make a list of grievances "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (1).

In 1869, famous female leaders Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton launched the National Women's Suffrage Assoiciation (NWSA) right around the time that Wyoming granted women suffrage. In addition, Colorado is the first state to adopt an amendment granting women the right to vote (in 1893). Utah and Idaho follow suit in 1896, Washington State in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska and Illinois in 1913, Montana and Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma in 1918 (2). Black women also formed a group called the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) who also had the same goals as the NWSA - universal suffrage.

The National Women's Party, led by Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, began a strong push for the passage of the Anthony Amendment. That push includes protesting in front of the White House and other acts of civil disobedience. check out the trailer for HBO's Iron Jawed Angels:



That's Hilary Swank (2 time Oscar winner) playing Alice Paul. Paul and Burns decided to take their pursuit of suffrage to a whole new level which scandalized old-fashioned suffragists like Carrie Chapman Catt, but in the end, proved more effective than not. For instance, Paul and Burns organized a march for President Wilson's inauguration in 1913 (and violence broke out afterwards).
Lawyer Inez Milholland riding a horse in the 1913 parade (looking like Joan of Arc).

Here's a YouTube link to part 1 of IJA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df5ePfUW-60

Part 2 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT76UtxpOoA (Ida Wells appears in this segment pushing for black women to march together w/ white women).

Part 3 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ZK1v9O1DI (the 1913 march and violence are at the end).

Part 4 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYYqtq_uRlM&feature=related (reaction to the violence as the DC police turn away - Wilson declines to push for suffrage).

Part 5 of IJA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T68z-EpoXg (see the split of the more conservative NAWSA and the more radical Congressional Union / National Women's Party).

Some of the reasons why men didn't women to vote (tongue in cheek):

Why We Don't Want Men to Vote (by writer Alice Miller, 1915):

- Because man's place is in the army.
- Because no really manly man wants to settle any question otherwise than by fighting about it.
- Because if men should adopt peaceable methods women will no
longer look up to them.
- Because men will lose their charm if they step out of their natural sphere and interest themselves in other matters than feats of arms, uniforms, and drums.
- Because men are too emotional to vote. Their conduct at baseball games and political conventions shows this, while their innate tendency to appeal to force renders them unfit for government (3).

Finally, after showing that women have earned the right to vote by working in the factories during the Great War, President Wilson finally pushed for the amendment's support. It probably didn't hurt that the NWP asked voting women not to support Wilson in the 1916 election. The House passed it overwhelmingly, but it took the Senate another couple months to finally agree to the amendment.

"Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan were the first states to pass the law; Georgia
and Alabama rushed to pass rejections. The anti-suffrage forces, which included
both men and women, were well-organized, and passage of the amendment was not easy.
When thirty-five of the necessary thirty-six states had ratified the amendment, the
battle came to Nashville, Tennessee. Anti-suffrage and pro-suffrage forces from
around the nation descended on the town. And on August 18, 1920, the final vote
was scheduled.
One young legislator, 24 year old Harry Burn, had voted with the anti-suffrage forces to that time. But his mother had urged that he vote for the amendment and for suffrage. When he saw that the vote was very close, and with his anti-suffrage vote would be tied 48 to 48, he decided to vote as his mother had urged him: for the right of women to vote. And so on August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th and deciding state to ratify" (3).

With all of this info, please answer the following questions:

1. Why do you think the women of the NWP like Lucy Burns and Alice Paul had to resort to more radical methods to highlight their case for women's suffrage?

2. Can you think of current or recent incidents / marches / protests where protestors had used more radical tactics to gain attention to their cause? Which ones? What did they do?

Due Friday, November 6. 150 words minimum.

Sources:
1. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875901.html The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls, NY, 1848.
2. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html Women's Rights Timeline.
3. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage1900/a/august_26_wed.htm Women's History

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.

Link to virtual Central Park, NYC - SCROLL DOWN FOR BLOG 20

Since we're studying the changes in cities around the turn of the 20th Century, here is the link to Virtual Central Park, NYC.

http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageNavigator/virtualpark_main

Also, here's an interesting article from CNN about a woman's purse that had been stolen and then tossed into a hollow cherry tree back in 1982. The woman and her wallet were reunited this summer in July 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/06/newyork.wallet.cherry.tree/index.html

And here is a link to the history of Central Park: http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageNavigator/aboutpark_history_cp_history_150yrs

Makes for interesting reading about Fred Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux and their fights over what to do with the park and its designs.

Blog #20 - The Great Wall of America?

In this unit, we will be studying our immigration history, but specifically, we'll look at the time period of 1880s - 1924 when a huge influx of Eastern and Southern European immigrants arrived on our shores looking for work, land, the American Dream and freedom.

One question that swirls around the recent immigration debate is whether or not a 700-mile wall should be built along the 1,952-mile border w/ Mexico. The House approved $2.2 billion for the wall back in December 2005 to "build a double set of steel walls with floodlights, surveillance cameras and motion detectors along one-third of the U.S.-Mexican border." 1 The Senate approved the bill shortly afterwards.

On Thursday, October 26, 2006, President Bush signed this bill into law. "Unfortunately the United States has not been in complete control of its borders for decades and therefore illegal immigration has been on the rise," Bush said at a signing ceremony. He called the fence bill "an important step in our nation's efforts to secure our borders." 3 (What's interesting to note about the Yahoo article that I found back in 2006 is that it can't even figure out how long the southern border of the U.S. is. One part of the article says it's a "nearly 2,000-mile border" while another part of the article refers to the "fence project covering one-third of the 2,100-mile border." Last time I checked, we haven't changed our southern border with Mexico since the Gadsden Purchase in 1853.)

Since the signing of that bill, the Senate killed President Bush's amnesty bill for illegal aliens in June 2007 which would have gotten an estimated 12 million illegal aliens into the tax system. Apparently, the "American people won today. They care enough to get mad and fight enough for it," said Republican Senator Jim DeMint, though I'm not exactly sure why he'd be mad that MORE people are paying taxes 4. In retrospect, two years later, the country could definitely use that tax money as our federal deficits continue to soar. And I'd ask the senator what the country actually won.

So, what do you think? Does America need this wall? Why or why not? Read the articles on illegal immigration and decide before answering. Check on the links below to read some opinions.

Your answer should be 150 words or more.

Due Tuesday, Sept. 29

1. Article from the San Fransico Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/26/BORDERFENCE.TMP

3. Yahoo article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061026/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration_8
4. BBC News "Vote Dashes Bush Immigration Plan" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6250756.stm

5. Different views on illegal immigration: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4989248.stm

6. An immigrant's story - why she's fighting to stay in America - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7346003.stm

7. Divided views as US fence goes up - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7212827.stm

Blog #19 - Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

We saw the clip from the documentary, New York, that gave us a glimpse into the terrifying fire that consumed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in March 1911. Many things went wrong, from the locked doors, to the collapsing fire escape, and insufficient fire fighting equipment (failing water pressure and ladders that only reached the 6th floor).



There was a strike two years earlier at that factory where 400 workers spontaneously walked off the job led by a young lady named Clara Lemlich b/c of awful working conditions. The next year, 16 year old Pauline Newman led thousands of seamstresses on strike, and an unprecendented agreement was made w/ the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union which set up a system of grievances. Unfortunately, greedy garment owners didn't honor the agreement (as evidenced by the deadly fire in 1911).


After the fire, the New York legislature formed a factory commission to investigate the awful working conditions throughout factories in the state. By the end of the commission's search, they recommended and the legislature passed many factory reforms which became blueprints for many others states to copy. So, out of tragedy comes something good.

My questions for you are: 1. Why does it appear that we make significant changes (changes that many people acknowledge need to be made) only after a major tragedy has occurred?
For instance, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our airline security was finally improved.
2. What keeps us from making the changes / reforms before a big catastrophe occurs?



Due Tuesday, Sept. 22, Minimum 150 words.



Girls who died in the fire aged 16 and under:
1. Anna Altman, 16
2. Vincenza Beletta, 16
3. Ida Brodsky, 16
4. Jennie Franco, 16
5. Kate Leone, 14
6. Rosalie Maltese, 14
7. Gaetana Midolo, 16
8. Antonietta Pasqualicca, 16
9. Sarah Sabasowitz, 14
10. Jennie Stellino, 16
11. Bessie Vivlania, 15



Sweatshops - Yesterday and Today - An online exhibit http://www.unitehere.org/sweatshops/photos/photos.html

Profile on Pauline Newman from the Jewish Women's Archive - http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/newman-pauline

Blog #18 - Groves in 1959 and America in 2059

Since Sept. 9, 2009 is the 50th anniversary of the opening of Groves High School, we’ll discuss how you think your life will be different in fifty years (and also, how your life is similar to the kids who lived back in 1959).


Please answer the following questions:
1. What will people remember of America in fifty years (2059)? Why?
2. How will life be different than it is today? (try not to focus on technology but look at other things too – work, politics, religion, business, leisure time, art, school, etc.)
3. Based upon our class discussion, how did it seem that your life was similar to teenagers back in 1959? Use a couple of specific examples.

200 word minimum - Due Friday, Sept. 11.

Blog #17 - Evaluation of Retro/Backwards U.S. History

Change of plans - I decided to do this blog instead of the one on who's to blame for the Cold War. I figured this might be easier, plus you get another day to do it since I didn't put it up yesterday, and I could use the feedback.

We're practically done with the school year and you've been working with our most recent American history (1941 - present) in a backwards, thematic manner. This semester, I've taken several issues or problems that we see in the news regularly - the Iraq War, the economic meltdown, energy costs and renewal, nuclear weapons and terrorism, foreign policy, Hurricane Katrina - and show you the roots of these problems by working backwards from the present.

What I'd like you to do in this blog is assess your learning:

1. Do you think you learned history better by learning it backwards or in this case, starting with a modern day problem and then working towards its root causes, much like a case study? Or was this approach more confusing because we didn't learn history in the traditional manner? Or wouldn't the approach matter - history is confusing? Why?

2. What do you think are the benefits of learning backwards? What are the faults or drawbacks?

3. Compared to what your friends in other U.S. history classes learned, do you think you learned more, less, or the same amount of stuff? Why?

4. Which unit do you think you learned the most in? Why? Which unit do you think you learned the least in? Why?

Due by Tuesday afternoon- 4 p.m. - 200 words minimum.

Thanks for your comments in advance. I appreciate all the feedback; it helps me improve for next year's class. I used last year's classes to help improve the flaws from last year and I hope to make this class better for next year.

Blog #16 - Just War - WW2, Vietnam, Iraq

When we think of war, historians make a distinction between just and unjust wars. Just wars are fought by countries who hold true to principles whereas unjust wars are fought either by nations or groups w/o principles and are fought for immoral gains. This concept is as old as the Roman Empire and its great poet, Cicero, but has been also developed more thoroughly by the Catholic Church and its saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.


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--see point #4). 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)

Using the criteria above, consider what you've read (and check out at least one of the links below to include in your response), tell me the following:

1. Was World War 2 a Just War? Why or why not? If it's not tell me where it fails by your criteria.

2. Was Vietnam a Just War? Why or why not? And finally, has Iraq and the rest of the War on Terror been a Just War? Why or why not?

Due Wednesday, June 3 - 250 words minimum. (20 points)

Go Wings!

Thoughts to consider:

NPR's analysis of Just War Doctrine only 4 months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks - http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/jan/justwar/020125.justwar.html

Iraq a Just War from an Australian newspaper - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25571560-7583,00.html

Just War Theory (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm

The Nation's take on Just War after the Afghanistan War began - http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011029/falk - "The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War II."

A great compendium on JustWar Theory info by the BBC -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/index.shtml

chilling with the new Samsung TVs

Thank goodness for the Samsung HD TV grants (not paid for by any BPS funds).

Thank you, Mrs. Voigt and Mrs. Boyer. You rock!

Ken Burns' videos never looked so awesome.

Blog #15 - Do It Yourself - Pick a question and answer it!

All right. I know that you've been dying to ask some blog questions all semester long, and here are some of your fellow classmates' best inquiries into our subject matter.

Pick one and do your best to answer one of these questions that is NOT a who, what, where, or when question. These questions are more of why, how, what if types of questions. Dig deep into the personalities we've studied, try to find the issues that have bothered you or that have been sticking in your head "like a splinter in your mind."

Pick one and answer it with a minimum of 200 words. Due Monday, May 18.

1. If you lived in the 1970's what would be your reaction to when Nixon says 'If the president does it, its not illegal."? (brandon k.)

2. If America chose not to get involved in world crisis', what do you think the world would look like and why? (brandon k.)

3. During Watergate, Nixon invoked his power of executive privilege regarding his secret tapes. To what extent should a president be allowed to maintain privacy in the Oval Office? Why do you think this? (melanie e.)

4. Has our government made the right decisions in supplying energy needs to the U.S. and is our current administration directions on the right path? Why or why not? (melanie e.)


5. Was Nixon’s presidency overall considered beneficial or was it not? (Keeping in mind the Watergate scandal, the pentagon papers, giving false information to the American people, the policy on Vietnam, invasion of Cambodia etc)can his personality be judged by these incidences or it was just the power that he had making him do this? (gauri)


6. Did the policemen act in the correct or proper manner outside the convention hall in Chicago and was it justified? Was it all right for the policemen to be that harsh to the protesters who were kids? The Americans said that the guards were partially correct in what they did. How would you have reacted to this incident? (gauri, china w., )

7. If you were president and your men had perpetrated the Watergate burglary, how would you have handled it? When the news about Watergate finally surfaced, how would you have dealt with that news? (allison w.)

8. How do you think we would have dealt with the Iraq War/Conflict after the 9/11/01 terror attacks if we would have killed Saddam during the 1st Gulf War in 1991? Do you think there would have even been a second war in 2003? Explain. (johanna)

9. Considering how far America has come in the pursuit of guaranteeing civil rights today, what else do we have to further the goals of Dr. King? (sydney h.)

10. Do you think the way America is portrayed as a "free country" is accurate to how it really is? (katie r.)

11. Why has the hippie subculture become so ridiculed in today's society? (jack d.)

12. Why do you think we can't find Osama Bin Laden? Have the U.S. soldiers been trying hard enough to find him? Or has the information they've been getting so poor or bad that they can't find him? (sam s., mary s.)

13.If Michigan experienced a catastrophic natural weather event on the scale like Hurricane Katrina, do you think you and your family would stay and rebuild your life here or would your family move to another state? (sam s.)

14. Where do you think the world would be if not for Dr. Martin Luther King, how would life be different today? (alana w.)

15. How the world be different if the 9/11/01 attacks hadn't happened? Would security at airports and sporting events be as strict as it is today? Would we have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan as well? (mike m.)

16. Should the U.S. not allow foreign car makers like Honda, Isuzu and Volkswagen to sell their cars here in America? Why or why not? (thurgood)

17. What did you get out of the Frost - Nixon interviews? What do you think of Richard Nixon as a person and a president? (tyler p.)

18. How will Americans look at the Middle East after the Iraq War is over? How will Middle Easterners see America after the war? (kevin l.)

19. Do you think the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11/01 attacks? If so why? (danielle m.)

20. Who do you think did a better job handling Iraq and Saddam Hussein: George H.W. Bush (41) or George W. Bush (43)? (allison s.)

21. A lot of people seem to be overreacting about the taped recordings Nixon had of White House conversations. Do you think people made too big of a deal out of them when they learned about them in 1973 and it should have been o.k. for the president to do what he liked with them? Or do you think it was a big deal that Nixon wanted to keep the tapes? (bobby h.)

22. If there is another terrorist attack, will America (and America's government) be ready this time? Why or why not? (jacob s.)

23. What will Americans do if President Obama isn't as good as he s believed to be? (jacob s.)

24. Was splitting Germany in 2 parts the right thing to do after WW2 considering all of the problems of the Cold War? (china w.)

25. Do you think the Supreme Court was right in overruling Nixon's executive privilege argument about the WH tapes? Why or why not? (andrew s.)

26. Do you think President Reagan came up with SDI for the protection of America or was there another reason? Why? (ryan s.)

27. In your opinion, should Nixon have ever been put in prison? Why or why not? Or was pardoning him the right thing to do? (tyler d.)

28. If you were president during the Vietnam War, what would you have done differently than presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon? (matt t.)

29. If you were in Rosa Parks' shoes, what would you have done? (evan f.)

30. Which has been more devastating for the United States: Vietnam or Iraq? Why? (kyle d.)

31. When do you think the war on terror will end? Why? (kyle d.)

32. Should President George H.W. Bush (41) gone into Baghdad when he had the chance back in 1991 and killed Hussein when he had the chance? Why or why not? Do you think that would have solved things that we're seeing in Iraq today or would we still be there? (tim t.)

33. In the movie, Frost/Nixon, why do you think Nixon seemed so unprepared or out of it in the final Watergate interview? (eric b.)

Due Monday, May 18.

Skip down for Blog #14

Here are some You Tube excerpts of the real Frost / Nixon interviews.



Concerning the 18 1/2 minute gap in one of the Watergate tapes (below):


Finding $1 million dollars to pay off the Plumbers (below):



Why didn't you stop it [the whole break-in, cover-up, mess] (below)?


There was no cover-up of any criminal activities (below):



If I intended to cover it up, it would've gone away (below):



I gave them a sword, and they stuck it in (below):



We do not have full access to these interviews on YouTube but you can buy them on Amazon ($30) or from www.frostnixon.com or get a copy from your local library to see all six hours of footage if you can't get enough of just these excerpts. These excerpts are released by the owners of the originals. Yes, I know, those darn copyrights.

Blog #14 - "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal!"

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If the President
approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of
significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out to do so without violating the law. " - Richard M. Nixon

During all of the Vietnam protests, President Nixon became convinced that there was a foreign power/country/enterprise directing these American kids, so he wanted to find out who and how these directives were getting done. He signed an Executive Order that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests and other crazy things. The FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants. These powers were later curtailed by Congress in the mid 70s, but then expanded again recently in the name of securing the nation from another terrorist attack called the Patriot Act.

"Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, 'Go right ahead'." -
Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.

So, give me your comments on Nixon's statements. (pick one of the following questions).

1. Is it o.k. for the president to do just about anything in the defense of the United States during a time of war? Why or why not? Do you agree with Nixon's reasoning? Why or why not?

2. Or, comment on any similarities to today's events in the war on terror. Think about the comparisons to the Patriot Act, National Security Agency's unwarranted wiretapping, checking emails, library records, torture and methods of torture, etc. Since we haven't had a terrorist attack on American soil in almost eight years (knock on wood), does this lack of an attack mean that what we've doing is working? Why or why not? If President Bush / Obama hadn't or doesn't continue to do these measures, then who is at fault for another attack? CIA? NSA? The President? Bush/Obama is in a no-win situation here: you do too much, he's infringing on peoples' rights. He does too little, he gets most if not all of the blame.

Due Monday, May 11. 200 words minimum. Git 'er done!

Check out this website on Watergate: http://watergate.info/

Also, awesome link on the real history and media reaction behind the Frost/Nixon interviews: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln&nixon_and_watergate_tmln_media_response=nixon_and_watergate_tmln_frost_nixon_interviews

Blog #13 - Tie it all together

Since we're doing history backwards, I want you to think about tying up any loose ends that you might have hanging since we're just past the halfway point in the semester.

There are a couple of things I'd like you to think about as you write blog #13:


1. Pick at least two areas / time periods - economics, energy, terrorism, Cold War, foreign policy, etc. - that we have studied and explain how the recent past(last forty years) has influenced current events within the past ten years or so (for instance, how has the Vietnam War impacted the way American Presidents have planned for future military engagements like the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the Iraq War). Be specific with your two examples as you trace the development of a theme or an idea through time and show how it has developed over time;

2. Evaluate your two time periods and the themes involved and explain why you think these have improved, stagnated, or devolved. For instance, has America learned its lessons from Vietnam? Why or why not?

300 words minimum. Due Monday, May 4 (25 points).

Blog #12 - Pick one of the 2 questions -

Pick one of the following questions below:

All week we have been talking about comparisons between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. One of the issues has been about chemical weapons:

1. Agent Orange was used to destroy the foliage of Vietnam - 30% of the country - an area about the size of Massachusetts. Also, napalm was used to destroy and burn down the same jungles made almost 3 million Vietnamese refugees. AO caused cancer in American veterans and Vietnamese civilians as well as birth defects in their children.

- So my question for you (if you choose this one) is: is the use of chemical weapons ever appropriate? Does it depend on what kind and why they're used? Why?

2. The draft was used during the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and all the way through Vietnam. When enough volunteers weren't found, the government had to come through with a draft. Since the Iraq War began in 2003, a couple of Congressmen wrote a bill calling for an equitable draft that would eliminate many of the Vietnam-era inequalities (college, medical, deferments, Canada, National Guard, etc.) and included men and women.

- Question - Would you fight in the Iraq War if you were drafted? Why or why not? Are there any conditions under which you would / wouldn't fight if drafted? Explain .

200 words minimum. Due Tuesday, April 28, 2009.

Saturday, April 25 in Grand Rapids, The Rescue

Check it out - here's the video on how you can help Invisible Children get psyched for their project, the Rescue, that's happening on Saturday night, April 25.



The Rescue Instructional Video from Jason Russell on Vimeo.

Blog #11 - Should Charlie Wilson be considered a hero?

We watched some short videos about Charlie Wilson and learned a little bit his role in helping the Afghani muhajideen fight against the Soviet Red Army from 1980-89. Charlie brought taxpayer money together w/ Saudi money to buy (initially) Soviet weapons and then buy American shoulder-launched Stinger missiles to shoot down the Soviet helicopters.

By supplying the Afghani fighters w/ aid, Charlie, Gust Avrakatos, Milt Bearden and the CIA helped end the Soviet Army's occupation of Afghanistan (and quite possibly) and the Cold War by bankrupting the Soviet Union.

To quote Charlie Wilson's War, Act Two:

"Pakistan's then president, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq, who had allowed the weapons to move through his country on CIA-purchased mules, credited Wilson with the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan. 'Charlie did it,' he said.

Thus, the largest covert operation in the CIA history ended with
Russia's humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But in Charlie Wilson's War (2003 Grove/Atlantic), George Crile notes that the
U.S.-financed war against the Soviets in Afghanistan also helped create the
political vacuum that was filled by the Taliban and Islamic extremists, who
turned their deadly terrorism against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the CIA tried to buy back the weapons they
had supplied, but were largely unsuccessful."

At the end of the 60 Minutes profile on Charlie Wilson, Morley Safer said that Charlie felt that the U.S. was making the same mistake again and again; we were "changing the course of history" and then not helping to fix the situation after the war was over. Charlie felt that if Afghanistan was not fixed after 10 years of occupation, it could "fall into civil war and then become a home to terrorism."

As for Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and 9/11/01, Charlie felt that a terrorist attack was inevitable: " 'We would have had something like 9/11 anyways. I think that bin Laden had his course pretty well set... But when you fight a war, you do what you think you need to do at the time. What seems right at the time is what you do,' Wilson says."

Question: Should little-known Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson be considered a hero of the Cold War? Why or why not? Give some specifics from the videos that we've seen or article links that I've provided.

150 words minimum. Due Friday, April 3.

CNN interview with Charlie Wilson, retired Congressman: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/23/charlie.wilson/index.html

ABC Story: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4042676&page=1

Blog #10 - Does the world need a police officer?

One of the books that I've been reading lately is Colossus by Niall Feguson. The subtitle is also the focus of the book: "The Rise and Fall of The American Empire." In it, Ferguson discusses how Americans are not typical imperialists; during the Cold War (which we will begin studying soon), we had "an empire of invitation" and not one necessarily of conquest. We had allies, not territories to rule over (or at least that's how many of us like to see it).

We see these sentiments in speeches all the time. Before (1st quote) and after (2nd quote) we invaded Iraq, President Bush stated:

"The U.S. has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new
government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people... We will remain in
Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept
this kind of commitment before in the peace that followed a world war.
After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left
behind constitutions and parliaments."

"We will help build a peaceful and representative government that protects
the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.
Iraq will go forwardas a unified, independent and sovereign nation... Other
nations in history have have fought in foreign lands and remained to occupy and
exploit. Americans, following a battle, want nothing more than to return
home."

Ferguson suggests that the U.S. could use its power for good in this unstable world today. He said that the United Nations is too fractured to be effective and that the members of the U.N.'s Security Council (like Germany, France, and China) have vetoed military actions. Compared to China or India or the Arab nations, the United States is best suited economically, politically, and militarily to lead the world out of chaos and into stability and order.

So, the question for you is about America and its role as the world's police officer: 1. Should America act as the world's police officer? If yes, why? If not, what should its role be?

Questions to consider:

The Rescue - April 25, 2009

Join the Rescue

Link to Ten Trillion and Counting...

Hey, I realized that PBS decided to carry the President's press conference and then something on First Lady Betty Ford. So here's a link to Frontline's website where you can watch it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/view/

Blog #9 - The Iraq War

Coming into its 7th year, the Iraq War may be winding down based upon President Obama's plan to shift the front of the war on terror to Afghanistan and take it to the Taliban and Al- Qaeda. Out of the 130,000 soldiers in Iraq, Obama wants to leave around 50,000 in Iraq though Congressional Democrats want to leave only 15,000 in the country.

When the history of the war will be written, historians will have to consider several questions (2 of which you'll answer below):

1. What should future generations be taught about the war?

2. What do you think we will remember about the war after it's all over?

200 words total - Answer due by Wednesday, March 25

Washington Post military correspondent Thomas E. Ricks stated at the conclusion of his latest book on the war, The Gamble, that the events for which the war will be most remembered have not yet happened. Maybe that's true. Maybe not. I believe most people will remember the prison torture scandal of Abu Ghraib. They'll remember the statue of Saddam toppeling over, and they'll probably won't forget the haphazard reconstruction efforts in the first few months of the occupation in the spring and summer of 2003.

Fox News' coverage of the war: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79630,00.html

CNN's War in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/

The Nation's coverage of the war: http://www.thenation.com/sections/iraq_war

Blog #8 - Economic Meltdown - How would you respond...?

In talking about the economic problems in the country today, we've mentioned a lot of different things:


1. Many people are getting laid off or fired (including all the Pontiac teachers and administrators);


2. Businesses are closing their doors - Circuit City, Trader Joe's, Barnes and Noble on Maple and Telegraph.


3. Homes are being foreclosed or their price has plummeted far below their mortgage price - there are FOR SALE signs littering neighborhoods like a bad headache.



4. The stock market has lost almost 45% of its value since the summer of 2008, families' retirement accounts and college funds have lost their value dramatically.




Blog: Pick two of the issues above and imagine how those two issues that you have picked would impact you and your family. For example, how would you and your family be affected if you suddenly lost your home? What would happen if your college fund was suddenly cut in half? If you had your sights set on Harvard, how would your college plans change?

Minimum 200 words. Due Monday, March 16th.