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.

CNN's Campbell Brown on the Big 3's Bailout

In her No Bias, No Bull section of the broadcast, Campbell Brown let's it rip on the Big 3. I think she's got some very valid points when it comes to the long long wait for more fuel efficient cars and big fat CEO paychecks. Listen to what she has to say below:



Sound off and tell me what you think.

Thanks.

Completed Questions for Articles on Economic Turmoil

Please read instructions first:
I wanted to get you started with these first two articles tonight. You will not have to answer all of these questions, just some of them. The red, bold questions are required, and after I'm finished with the last two articles, I'll give you a total # on how many you have to answer.


**Please make sure that you do your own, independent work. I will be providing some vocabulary words and additional explanation for the articles.

“The End of Prosperity?” by Niall Ferguson.
1. What has been happening to the U.S. housing market since 2007?
2. How many homeowners might lose their homes, according to worst case scenarios?
3. Why are banks and other financial institutions in bigger trouble?
4. How does the “drastic reduction of credit” affect smaller companies like the car dealer example?
The Historical Parallels
5. What happened to the stock market in the 3 years after the crash of 1929?
6. How did the stock market react on Sept. 29 (2008) after Congress initially rejected the bailout?
7. What does Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s book say is the cause of the Great Depression?
Why Depression 2.0 Can Still Be Avoided
8. How has current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tried to keep from repeating past mistakes?
9. Give 2 examples of how America’s economic turmoil has gone global.


“11 Questions About the $700 Billion” by Justin Fox and the section at the bottom of the page called “Need a Loan?”
11 Questions
10. Who gets the $700 billion?
11. Why is it a problem if more than one leveraged financial institution (banks, investment banks, etc.) collapses?
12. Will the government get all of its money back? Why or why not?
13. Who does Fox blame for the crisis?
Need a Loan?
14. What is the biggest hurdle in getting a mortgage now?
15. How are credit card companies changing their strategies?
16. How does the credit crunch affect student loans?

“How They Failed Us” by Michael Grunwald.
17. Why do many people not trust both parties in government, according to the author of the article? Provide at least two specific examples.
18. How did both Senator Obama and Senator McCain react/deal with the negotiations over the bailout plan?
The Credibility Gap - required: pick one of the following four questions
19. Why is it surprising to see House Republicans vote against the bailout bill and break with President Bush?
20. Why wasn’t the bailout plan popular with liberals or conservatives?
21. How did the Bush administration fail to “sell” their plan to the American public?
22. Why did the opposition to the bailout change practically overnight?

"Death By Rescue" by Donald Luskin - required: pick one of the following five questions
I'm From the Government, and I'm Here to Help
23. What does the article list as possible causes for the collapse of the financial markets in the past few months?
24. With the Bear Stearns bank bailout in March 2008, the Federal Reserve negotiated its sale to a competitor (JP Morgan bank) on a Sunday night when the stock market wasn’t open for business. Why does this kind of deal only make it attractive for other helpless banks to find a good deal and not have to face the consequences?
Falling One By One
25. What is your reaction to the government allowing competing mega-banks to buy each other out for below-market value that the company is worth while the government uses taxpayers’ money to pay for the sale?

I thought of it this way:

That would be like the government allowing McDonalds to buy Burger King for 1/10
its value as a company and then allowing McDonalds to use tax dollars to pay for
the sale. The rationale is that if Burger King goes out of business, the
jobs lost will damage the economy and all of the shareholders invested in Burger
King will lose money. And what about the companies that sell BK their
hamburger, buns, potatoes and pop? All those companies could be hurt too,
so the best thing to do, of course, is to let McDonalds buy BK. And
McDonalds will pay the U.S. government back if it ever makes a profit on any of
this. What’s that, you ask? What about all of those competing stores
right next to each other? Well, you can leave them up and keep selling the
same product, but if a McDonalds is losing to a BK somewhere, that BK is
probably gonna have to close down and those folks will be thrown out of
work. Wait! Isn’t that what we’re trying to avoid? Yep.
So….

Urgency, Then Inaction
26. Doesn’t it make you wonder what’s really going on when written into the $700 billion bailout law are specific instructions about “provisions related to film and television productions” and an “exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children” but little specifics on where the $700 billion should be spent? Why or why not?
27. Why does the author believe that the $250 billion in bailout money used in October 2008 was the best way to use that money?

Blog #7 - Why are we still fighting over evolution and creation today?

The Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee was labeled the "Trial of the Century" when it occurred in July 1925. Editors across the country called it thus b/c the case represented so much of what was going on in the 1920s:

1. Old vs. New
2. Rural vs. Urban
3. God vs. Science
4. Faith vs. Reason
5. Traditional values vs. city morals

Celebrity lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan battled for eleven days with very different intentions: Darrow wanted to put the Butler Act (Tennessee's state law banning the teaching of evolution) on trial while Bryan sought to rid the world of Darwinian thought seeing World War 1 and Social Darwinism as its end result). Scopes was eventually found guilty, fined $100 (which both the ACLU and Bryan offered to pay for him). Unfortunately, five days after the trial, Bryan died in Dayton.

In 1926, Mississippi becomes the 2nd state to outlaw the teaching of evolution. The next year, the Tennessee state Supreme Court affirms the Butler Act but overturns Scopes conviction on a technicality. 1928, Arkansas becomes the 3rd state to ban evolution.

Eventually, Tennessee would repeal the Butler Act in 1967 but pass a law in 1973 that requires science teachers to give equal time to creation as a competing theory to the origin of man. In 1968, 1982, and 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court declares these laws banning evolution (or requiring creation to be taught) as unconstitutional. It seemed that by 1987, the debate was over.

But, it's not. According to the article I handed out, "Monkey See, Monkey Do", Intelligent Design (ID) has taken the place of creation in classrooms and school board meetings around the country. There is even a think tank university dedicated to promoting ID teaching in public schools. President Bush believes that ID should be presented as a competing theory. One of the problems with ID is that there is no scientific basis to support it as a theory.

A school district in Dover, Penn. was prohibited by a judge from teaching ID in its biology classes in 2005, and the three school board members who pushed for its inclusion in the high school curriculum were recently ousted from the board after national embarassment. See the CNN link for this case: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html

So my question is two fold:
1. Does the teaching of creation / Intelligent Design in public schools cross the line when it comes to separation of church and state (where the government should not endorse or favor one religion -in this case the Judeo-Christian religion - over another) as specified in the 1st Amendment? Why or why not?
2. Should creation / ID be presented as a competing theory for the origin of man along with evolution in public schools? And why in the world hasn't this controversy gone away even 81 years after the Scopes Trial?

Answer both questions in a minimum of 200 words total. Due Friday, 11/7.

Great timeline on the Scopes Trial and Creation / Evolution controversy:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4723956

More Evolution / Scopes Trial websites:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/
http://www.scopestrial.org/
http://www.scopestrial.org/inhisimage.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/2/l_082_01.html

Blog #6 - Free Speech During War Time - Treason or Acceptable?

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, we had to restrict America more of its 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 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:

• is questioning your country's conduct during a war o.k.?


• 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??


• Is this line of questioning during war time o.k. or does it make you unpatriotic? Why?
  
  Minimum of 200 word response - due Monday, October 27th.

That's So Gay

Here are a couple of public service announcements that try to get people to think about using the phrase, "that's so gay". The first one includes Hillary Duff.







http://thinkb4youspeak.com/