Thanks to History Masters

They have us listed as one of their Top 50 American History Blogs. 
Check them out here.  http://mastersinhistory.org/2010/top-50-american-history-blogs/

Blog #34 - Nixon - "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 Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 200 words
 
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 #33 - Follow up to Civil Rights unit - Racism dead? Klan in the classroom, say what?

Finally, this blog is getting close to being done.  Part of the reason I've taken a lot of time on it is because I've wanted to say exactly what I mean with the blog.  I try to do that with all of my blogs, but especially b/c this one tends to fall into a sensitive area, I want to be particularly careful about what is said. 

On Wednesday and Thursday, we discussed (as a long-overdue follow-up to our Civil Rights unit) some issues concerning race in America.  One issue concerned how Americans viewed racism after the 2008 election: 1. Was racism a pretty much done deal since the country had elected a black man, so let's, as a nation, move on to other things like our tanking economy?   2. Or, had America achieved some kind of post-racial enlightenment by electing Barack Obama, a man whose skin color would have kept him barred from an equal education had he lived in, say Topeka, Kansas back when Linda Brown lived in the early 1950s (he wasn't born until 1961)?  3. Or, as many of you voiced your opinion agreed, that racism hadn't perished in 2008 and that news of its death had been greatly exaggerated. 

We then turned our attention to the unfortunate occurrence in Lumpkin County H.S. in northern Georgia last week when a few American history students and their teacher offended students as they walked through the school hallways dressed in Klan robes (though the teacher claims that sheets were used, not robes).  The teacher didn't inform anyone of what she was doing, rumors spread throughout the school afterwards that the Klan had been roaming the halls, and that there had been no school-wide announcement to correct the record.  “The brief appearance of four robed and hooded figures caused a commotion in the cafeteria as several students became upset and angry. Some became angrier than others.” Principal Tracy Sanford said 1.

News Update!! - Apparently, in nearby Gwinnett County schools in Lawrenceville, GA, another social studies teacher had the same idea of dressing her kids up in Klan robes for a re-enactment and was told to stop.  However, by the time the teacher was told to stop, she had already done a similar activity with her 8th grade class at Sweetwater M.S..  In the Atlanta Journal Constitution article I found about this event, it makes one major distinction: the Gwinnett County teacher, Stephanie Hunte is black where as the Lumpkin H.S. teacher is white. 

The AJC's Rick Badie wrote about many of the issues that we had discussed in his editorial dated Friday, May 28.  Why weren't these things pre-approved by an administrator?  Why not inform the kids in the school as to what's going on before the students go traipsing through the halls?  But I think he misses the point when he says that the administrators will lend "an ear to those with objections."   I don't think many of us get the point here. 

(If you'd like to tell Mr. Badie your opinion, be respectful and send him a copy of your response and a link to the blog at his email address rbadie@ajc.com). 

I don't think either of these projects should have gotten past the planning stages.  For the most part, asking kids to re-enact something in a structured framework is fine, even if they are reenacting a contentious, controversial or previously accepted idea in history (one makes me think of Social Darwinism).  But, I think there comes a point in time where some issues can be taught in a different way and do not need to be taught through re-enactment.   What were the teachers allowing the students to do as Klansmen?   When the student becomes the person who perpetrated the heinous race crimes, what are we actually trying to teach that child (especially when it comes to the 8th graders - seriously, are they having a moment of soul-searching reflection as the hoods slip over their heads)?  Then, the teachers didn't take into account other people, mainly students of color, who these re-enactments might negatively affect.  One student at Lumpkin H.S., Cody Rider, felt very strongly about it, and had to be restrained by members of the staff in the cafeteria (see video below).  Furthermore,  the Lumpkin H.S. teacher still thinks her students should have just filmed that segment off-campus, which to me, shows that she still doesn't get that there's anything wrong with having her students put on Klan robes...eh, sheets.  She thought she was doing the right thing by teaching her AP students about racism, but could she be teaching the nation something else instead?

I don't even know where to start with questions, b/c I think I answered most of my own questions above. 

Please answer the following questions:
1. Why does it seem that white America tends to be clueless when it comes to racial sensitivity?   If this Klan reenactment offends most members of the black community, but other black Americans don't say anything or other more visible black Americans just dismiss the media circus as a tempest in a teapot, who should you listen to?  Why? 

2. Watch the video below on Tim Wise talking about "How White People Talk About Race" and share your reactions.  Do you think his comments are accurate?  Why or why not? 




Due Thursday, June 3 - 200 words

Sources: 
1. http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/05/25/georgia-students-wear-klan-robes-through-school-with-teachers-ok/
2. http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/gwinnett-schools-investigate-after-535560.html
3. http://www.ajc.com/opinion/rick-badies-gwinnett-a-537781.html?cxntlid=daylf_artr

Blog #32 - Vietnam Debate Blog

This week, we debated America's fate in 1965 - should America escalate the war in Vietnam or withdraw?  There were several nuanced options within the debate: 1. Escalate fully; 2. Escalate slowly and control the risks; 3. Withdraw slowly, negotiate and provide aid to SV; 4. Pull out completely. 

Each option stated their main points vigorously and defended them well.  When the votes came in, 2nd hour had a tie between option 2 and 3; 3rd hour had a tie between option 1 and 2.  Interestingly enough, option 4, the pull-out of Vietnam now choice, only received a couple of votes in each class (but not for lack of trying).  I don't know if this is b/c of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the backlash vs. an Iraq pullout.  But well done to all involved. 

In the film, Fog of War, that we've been watching recently, former Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara asked the following question when reflecting thing when analyzing America's use of chemical weapons like Agent Orange on Vietnam to defoliate the jungles and make it "easier" for our soldiers to fight and win against the Viet Cong. 

"How much evil must we do in order to do good?"
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara

A couple things to consider when answering this question:  if we're doing evil in order to do good, is that good really a good thing?  If it is a good thing, then at what point do the evil means (that you are using, for instance, Agent Orange) become so heinous that it negates the good that you are doing? 

This is an optional question to answer if you feel like tackling it for 4 extra credit points. 

On a different angle, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has been exposed has having misrepresented his time during the Vietnam Era as he runs for the U.S. Senate spot in this upcoming election.  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/nyregion/18blumenthal.html?src=me&ref=general  It seems that some members of the Baby Boom generation, especially those who serve in the military can't really come to terms with what they did during this time period, Mr. Blumenthal included. 

When talking to a group of veterans, he talked about the "days that I served in Vietnam" when talking supporting our troops unconditionally.  He never served and actually went out of his way to obtain five deferments so that he didn't have to serve like less fortunate soldiers who didn't go to college or have connections like Blumenthal.  His father worked with the Washington Post, and somehow young Dick received the deferment 2-A, one of the most coveted deferments, which meant that his job or role was so important that he needed to stay in the U.S..  This allowed him to finish up his Harvard grad work, go to Britain for more grad work, get a job at the Post, and then worked for the Nixon White House.  Only after the war looked like it was wrapping up did Dick join the Marine Reserves. 

Former president Clinton went overseas during the war while on a Rhodes scholarship and protested the war in Britain, while George W. Bush spent his service time in a cushy Air National Guard post protecting the Alabama skies from Communists. 

Here's an article that examines why politicians lie about their war service: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/politicians-and-their-fake-war-stories/?ref=nyregion  It makes for some very fascinating reading. 

Your three questions:

1. Why do you think some of the Baby Boom generation have such a difficult time with what they had done (or not done) during the Vietnam War? 

2. Which of the four options in your class (please identify 2nd or 3rd hour) argued the best case and why?  Please include specifics.

3. Why do you think the debate was set up like this (four different views, working in teams, debate, using primary resources)?  Explain. 

18 points (+4 extra if you choose to

answer McNamara's evil/good question). 

300 words minimum - due Monday, May 24, 2010

Blog #31 - Which JFK conspiracy do you believe?

We have been watching Oswald's Ghost and trying to get to the bottom of the mess surrounding the murder of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.  The Warren Commission, under stress to get to the bottom of the murder, tried to line up the facts and reasons why those facts had happened.  The implications of not coming to a lone gunman conclusion being murdered by Jack Ruby (feeling sorry for Jackie Kennedy who almost everyone loved or felt sympathy for) were staggering:  the murderer would still be on the loose.   So, the Warren Commission did was it supposed to: it presented the government's case for an open and shut case against Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) just in time for President Johnson to trounce Republican senator Barry Goldwater. 

Early on in the film, it appears to present one possible conspiracy with little evidence but conjecture: why would a leftist (LHO) kill a liberal president deep in the heart of Texas where JFK was deeply hated (given the editorials NOT welcoming the president to Dallas) along with the anti-segregationists and Texas oilmen (see pamphlet to the side).  The stuff that we hear on the cable newshows against either Presidents Bush or Obama is nothing new.  It was said 40 years ago.  Talk of impeaching a president was tossed at FDR, Clinton and many other presidents as well.

Another conspiracy that we heard was that the president was killed by the Cubans for his sponsoring of the Bay of Pigs invasion and the confrontation over the missiles in 1962.  LHO's shady past and his passing out of leaflets saying "Hands Off Cuba"  provide some plausibility for that scenario.  Whether these were pro-Cubans who wanted to kill JFK for the Bay of Pigs invasion, or anti-Castro people who were angry about the Bay of Pigs invasion and JFK' s refusal to support the invasion.  The killers could have been Cubans or it could have been Oswald.

In the book, 48 Liberal Lies About American History (That You Probably Learned in School), the #5 Lie was "JFK was killed by LBJ and a secret team to keep Kennedy from getting us out of Vietnam."   The author of the book, Larry Schweikart, argued that all of the top military contractors "put together couldn't equal the revenues of a major car comany or a McDonald's" (36).  There's some debate as to whether President Kennedy was a strong anti-Communist or not, whether he was willing to stay and fight in South Vietnam.  Some staffers stated that Kennedy had expressed uncertainty over remaining there.  Therefore, the "military-industrial complex" apparently has so much pull in the government that it can have a president assassinated (yet today, when our military is so much stronger and the U.S. gov't. withdraws from Iraq, not one single president is killed!  Amazing!). 

Also, there is the mafia involvement scenario.  There are a couple of angles on this.  One angle is that the assassination was retaliation for Attorney General Bobby Kennedy's attacks on the mafia.  They could have used their own killers and used Oswald as a "patsy" like he claimed.  According to Schweikart, there's wiretap evidence against some of the top crime bosses in the nation like Sam Giancana (the mob boss whose girlfriend, Judith Campbell, Frank Sinatra had introduced JFK to) among others (37).  The other angle has to do with killing JFK b/c he was having an affair w/ Judith Campbell (Exner, her married name).  

Then there's Oswald doing the murder by himself.  Pretty much the evidence points to this scenario.  Lawyer Gerald Posner wrote Case Closed  in 1993 tackles the absence of other evidence (the lack of more gunshots, the inability of the conspiracy folks to produce any bullets tied to the crime scene besides Oswald's or any other kind of forensic evidence.  In Oswald's Ghost, the film makes a very good case about how much LHO was underestimated - that he was too stupid, too incompetent, too this or too that to do any of the things that he had done on his own (get dishonorably discharged from the Marines, defect to the Soviet Union, marry a Russian woman and then return back to the U.S.) w/o the help of foreign governments or their agencies. 

Question:

Which JFK murder conspiracy / theory do you personally think has the most credibility?  Why?  Use info from Oswald's Ghost, article "Death of a President", and outside sources if necessary. 

Due Wednesday May 5 - 200 words minimum. 

Sources:

1. Timeline of JFK and LHO's lives from PBS's website for Oswald's Ghost: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/oswald/timeline/
2. Review of Gerald Posner's Case Closed, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/sl2.htm 
3. Norman Mailer, Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery
4. Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination
5. The Warren Commission - http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/index.html
6. Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963
7. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Marina and Lee
8. Edward Jay Epstein, Inquest
9. Mark Lane, RUSH TO JUDGEMENT

Blog #30 - What is NASA's future?

Earlier this month, President Obama stated that "we want to leap into the future" while at the same time dramatically cutting back on the American space program as a whole. In his announcement, he continues an earlier trend started by previous presidents Clinton and Bush II of privatizing government functions (think military security, private armies like Blackwater) and also ending the space shuttle program.  The president stated that he is still committed to going where no one has gone before, and that he expects NASA to get beyond the moon by 2025, but he wants to do it in a "smart way" which in the usual business-speak means doing the same or more w/ less money and people. 

His plan calls for the cancellation of the $100 billion Constellation program introduced by former president Bush in his last term who had said that he had wanted to return to the moon back in 2004.  Obama saved the Orion space capsule from the trash heap, originally to be used for the new moon landings, so that it can be downsized and be used to connect w/ the ISS (International Space Station). 

Furthermore, $6 billion will be spent in the next few years encouraging private companies to make their own rocket ships who can then ferry astronauts to the ISS.  Another proposal is to build heavy-lift rockets (its design will take five years to make and then construction begins soon after) to take astronauts to an asteroid, the moon, or another location (as yet undetermined).  The president's plan hopes to create 2,500 new jobs in the industry on top of all of this, but the plan also spends $40 million on helping those who lose their jobs in the cutbacks (like the space shuttle) to find new jobs in the aerospace industry. 

Here's a link to the text of his actual speech on April 15, 2010.  In the speech, President Obama mentions Sputnik and the impact it had on the nation; President Eisenhower's creation of NASA and the increased spending on math and science in American schools, and then President Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon and bring him safely back.


All of these changes that he wants, he states, reflect the new world in which we live.  We're no longer living in the Cold War in a space race; we live in an era of collaboration in which other nations (I'm reading between the lines here) should and can bear the cost of space exploration along with us.  And, not stated, but surely understood by all, we don't have the unlimited spending resources like the country did during the Cold War. 

He also outlines more positive changes that aren't listed in the article that I'd discussed above. 

If you want to watch the president's speech in HD, check it out. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/spaceconf_hd.html

Your question:
1. What do you think the future of the American space program should be?  Should we continue with a limited budget like we President Obama has outlined? Or should NASA have more funding to continue on a more ambitious program (see the 5 reasons to explore space below from SA)?  Why?
  - Is there another alternative besides these two options?  If so, what and why is it better?

200 words minimum, due Monday, April 26.


For further reading:
Here's an article by Scientific American about the race back to the moon by other nations: it's called "Moon Lust: Will International Competition or Cooperation Return Humans Back to the Moon?"

Another article on Scientific American lists the five essential goals for exploring the solar system.  Check it out to help you write your response.  This is probably the best resource I found (and you may find more out there) to argue for the continuation of NASA. 

Blog #29 - Good Night and Good Luck

Here's Ed Murrow's commentary on TV and dissent in the 1950s. 

Choose three statements – one from each speech – and discuss how each statement can be applied to our world and political or social situations today.

 

1. " No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine; and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

      This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves." Good night, and good luck."

    – See it Now broadcast, March 9 1954


2. "If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the . . . confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought."

– Ford Fiftieth Anniversary Show, CBS and NBC, June 1953

3. "We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

"Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.


"For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

"I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

"I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

"To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful."


Speech at Radio-Television News Directors Association, Chicago, October 15, 1958.

3 statements + analysis, 250 words total, due Monday, April 19. 

Blog #28 - After the war is won, a 2nd new Bill of Rights...

As part of his State of the Union address on January 11, 1944, President Roosevelt presented the nation with a 2nd Bill of Rights, economic rights that the government would have to guarantee for all Americans once the laws were passed.  Take a look at the following video:

Some of the key passages are as follows:

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence...People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation (since only 2-3% of the nation are farmers and less than 20% are in industry, this would have to change if this BoR was implemented);

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living (since so few of us are farmers now, this might change);

4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

5. The right of every family to a decent home;

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health (did we just achieve this last week?);

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

8. The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

He listed 8 things that would bring economic security to our nation and hopefully to the rest of the world.  At the point that he gave this address in history, America was NOT planning on a Cold War with the Soviet Union or stockpiling tens of thousands of nuclear missiles or spending billions on a military budget every year.  None of the 46 years of futility vs. the Soviet Union was set in stone, nor the explosion and entrenchment of the military-industrial complex in our national economy like it is today. 

However, America was coming out of the war w/ its biggest national debt in its history (having borrowed $200 billion from the American people in war bonds - $170 billion held by U.S. taxpayers - and from American banks).  Congressmen were wary of spending huge amounts of money on peace time programs, especially for FDR, because his New Deal programs had had such a mixed track record of success and failure. 

The reason I bring this issue up is b/c I think that the country has spent the next 66 years (and may continue) to try to achieve his goals.  As we finish out the year, we'll return to these eight core principles and examine how we have failed and / or succeeded. 

Your questions to answer:
1. Out of the 8 new rights listed above, which of them do you believe have been addressed in some way or another since 1944?  Try to pick and explain at least 2 (if you choose #6, please try to do some research and not repeat misinformation that you might have heard on talk shows, i.e., it's going to save billions, death panels, it forces everyone to buy insurance, etc.) 

2. Which of these 8 rights should be the one that is addressed or fixed by our Congress / President?  Why? 

3. Which one of these seems the least likely to be enforceable / possible to make an economic right?  Why?

200 words minimum.  Due Monday, April 12. 
Have a great spring break. 

Here's Glenn Beck's take on FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights. 




Further reading:
To view an article entitled: "FDR's 2nd Bill of Rights and Why We Need It Now" click here.
A response to this book from Forbes magazine who say that only one is quite enough. click here.
Here's an analysis of how the 2nd Bill is going so far: Click here.
An article about how the 2nd BoR violates the Constitution, click here.

Blog #27 - Fascism Can't Happen Here, Can It?

Could something like Japan, Germany and Italy's descent into fascism happen in America today?
If you remember the circumstances when these three countries fell under fascism's spell, the following was happening in these 3 countries:


1. A major economic depression (1929-1933) put amazing stress upon these three countries' economic systems, causing massive unemployment, inflation, and extreme stress upon their banking systems;


2. Weak democracies were unable to meet the demands upon its organization, whether through the rising violence in the streets, the internal threats from revolutions on both the left (Communists and Socialists) and the right (fascists), or the overwhelming poverty of the Depression or other economic crises (like Germany's hyperinflation crisis of 1922-23);


3. Strong nationalist feelings helped make the people in their country ready for a leader (Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito) who would exploit the country for his own personal sake;


4. In each country, a strong military presence - either with generals taking over the gov't. in Japan or the rebuilding of Germany's industry through an increase in military forces or the desire to spread out for resources and recapture old glory like Italy - allowed each country to channel their aggression and spread their imperialist demands;


5. In each country, the conservative business interests sided with the fascists in the hopes of postponing or preventing a socialist or communist revolution like what had occurred in Russia.  That was the greatest fear and these industrialists would rather ally themselves w/ a devil who is on their side (who they also thought they could control) then risk free elections.  What you end up seeing are corporations receiving favoritism or outright support over the working class of a nation. 


6. Free elections became tampered with or voters were intimidated at the polls before they stopped altogether or just gave up the pretense of being free and open (hmmm.... should I vote for this Nazi or that Nazi?).  So, whether the elections are national, state or local, they have been tampered with through stuffed ballots or detroyed or lost votes or large numbers of opposition voters being kept from voting;


7. Create an internal threat that could scare the country and allow the government greater powers to pursue this threat.  When the Reichstag (Germany's legislature) was burned down, the Communists were blamed and Hitler gained more power to pursue enemies of the state.  Two years later, Jews legally lost their rights.  It ends up that these internal enemies can become scapegoats for the problems that the nation encounters. 


Your questions:
1. Could these things occur in America? Why or why not?
2. Where do you see similar already occuring in America right now? Explain w/ examples. 


200 words minimum (not per question but total). Due Tuesday, March 30
(I gave you an extra day to do this b/c I didn't post this until Saturday afternoon). 



Author Sinclair Lewis wrote about this exact scenario in his novel in It Can't Happen Here in 1935.
 
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html
Here's a link to the novel online.

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.