http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-lesson-in-restraint-what-china-tells-us-about-iran/2012/10/21/cb7a2b10-1a44-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_story.html?wpisrc=nl_opinionsPlease read the article above. This op-ed offers some lessons from history (from China during the Johnson era and Vietnam War) that shed some light on policy options for dealing with the threat of a nuclear Iran. Do you think they are valid historical comparisons? Why or why not?
“State Department analysts asserted that China’s belligerent rhetoric belied its strategic caution. China’s leaders, they reasoned, might be tempted to step up support for regional insurgencies, such as the one engulfing South Vietnam, but they would stop short of any reckless action that threatened their own survival and would avoid at all costs a direct clash with the superior U.S. arsenal. Even revolutionaries were susceptible to the logic of deterrence, they argued.” Do you think this line of argumentation applies to Iran in 2012?
A few basic Blog rules: 1. Be respectful. 2. Please type your full name, a creative title, and what text/page numbers your blog entry is responding to on the top line of your comment. This will help us keep track of who is responding to what. 3. You may write in the first-person, informally. That being said, please write in complete sentences and keep your comments relevant and appropriate. 4. 200 word MINIMUM!
Students in Brazil’s public universities are still whiter and richer than average, and much more likely to have been privately schooled. And taxpayers still pick up their tab, spending five times as much per university student as per schoolchild. But explosive growth in private, for-profit universities is at last opening up higher education CLICK AND READ THIS ECONOMIST ARTICLE ON BRAZIL'S NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Your thoughts?
 Anais Nin says, "We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are." This is never as true as when we study history. Since we are currently studying the 1950s, I thought it would be interesting to share this article about how the 1950s or selective NOSTALGIA about the 1950s informs our present political choices. Your thoughts? Click HERE to read the full article (RECOMMENDED) ... a few excerpts are seen below. “…In one sense, all of the nostalgia can be boiled down to a simple proposition: In the 1950s, most Americans and most Western Europeans had confidence that their children would do better than they had done, that they would grow up to prosper in a stable society with a growing economy. The collapse of this certainty is the prime cause of discontent among the left, right and center. In the end, of course, nostalgia is a dangerous form of politics and a kind of lie. The fact that left and right alike are ambivalent about the 1950s, albeit in different ways, suggests that bringing that era back whole is not in the cards… But understanding politics now requires an appreciation for the nostalgic roots of our current struggles. It’s not hard to understand the yearning of many of Romney’s supporters for past cultural certainties. Obama’s coalition is, in cultural terms, the coalition of the future — younger and both ethnically and racially diverse. Yet Obama’s core pledge is to a new social compact that provides many of the guarantees of the old one. Thus the choice in 2012 may be, more than we realize, about which parts of the 1950s we yearn for most, and whether there is any way to bring back the best aspects of an old era while leaving the rest of it behind.”
CLICK HERE FOR RACHEL MADDOW'S ARTICLE ON EISENHOWER AND THE MODERN DAY REPUBLICAN PARTYRachel Maddow: In America Today, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower Would Be Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate (Bernie Sanders is the only registered Socialist in the US Senate). After reading the article, and given what you know about Eisenhower's position on different issues, write a 300 word minimum letter to either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney as if you were Dwight Eisenhower giving them advice on the economy, the role of government and social welfare. Post it as a comment to this blog.
 Please read this text (shared by Oscar Sweet) about Harry Truman and his character as a politician... Any thoughts?
Qualquer semelhança com os nossos políticos é erro de redação.
HARRY TRUMAN foi um tipo diferente como presidente. Provavelmente tomou tantas ou mais decisões em relação à história dos EUA como as que tomaram os 42 presidentes que o precederam.
Uma medida da grandeza talvez permaneça para sempre: trata-se do que fez DEPOIS de deixar a Casa Branca.
A única propriedade que tinha quando faleceu era uma casa na qual morava, que se encontrava na localidade de Independence, Missouri. Sua esposa a havia herdado de seus pais e, fora os anos em que moraram na Casa Branca, foi onde viveram durante toda a vida.
Quando se retirou da vida oficial em 1952, todos seus proventos consistiam numa pensão do Exército de $ 13.507 por ano. Ao saber o Congresso que ele custeava seus próprios selos de correio, lhe outorgou um complemento e mais tarde, uma pensão retroativa de $ 25.000 anuais.
Depois da posse do presidente Eisenhower, Truman e sua esposa voltaram a seu lar no Missouri dirigindo seu próprio carro... sem nenhuma companhia do Serviço Secreto.
Quando lhe ofereciam postos corporativos com grandes salários, os rejeitava dizendo: “Vocês não me querem a mim, o que querem é a figura do Presidente, e essa não me pertence. Pertence ao povo norte-americano e não está a venda...”.
Ainda depois, quando em 6 de Maio de 1971 o Congresso estava se preparando para lhe outorgar a Medalha de Honra em seu 87° aniversário, se recusou a aceitá-la, escrevendo-lhes:
“Não considero que tenha feito nada para merecer esse reconhecimento, venha ele do Congresso ou de qualquer outra parte”.
Como Presidente pagou todos seus gastos de viagem e comida com seu próprio dinheiro.
Este homem singular escreveu:
“Minhas vocações na vida sempre foram ser pianista numa casa de putas ou ser político. E para falar a verdade, não existe grande diferença entre as duas!”.
MORAL DA HISTÓRIA : CADA PAÍS TEM O SARNEY QUE MERECE !
- READ p.245-255 in your Packet from HOA.
- READ Howard Zinn, pages 424-442
- Once you have completed the readings, blog a 200 word minimum response to those readings where you attempt to answer some (not all) of the questions below.
GUIDING QUESTIONS:- What did it mean to be "soft on Communism" in the 1950s? How did the fear of being so perceived influence politics at the federal level? What happened to those who were willing to take such a risk? Did anyone in power choose to do so? Why or why not?
- Why do you think Congress supported HUAC for such a long period of time? Why was there so little opposition to HUACs?
A few basic Blog rules: 1. Be respectful. 2. Please type your full name, a creative title, and the page numbers or chapter your blog entry is responding to on the top line of your comment. This will help us keep track of who is responding to what. 3. You may write in the first-person, informally. That being said, please write in complete sentences and keep your comments relevant and appropriate. 4. 200 word MINIMUM!
As a blog comment write a response to the "Poetry and Politics: White Man's Burden and other poems." See blog assignment below!
POETRY AND POLITICS: WHITE MAN'S BURDEN
After reading and discussing Rudyard Kipling's 1899 poem "White Man's Burden" in class, read the three poems selected that were written as a response to this controversial (although widely popular) poem from the turn of the 20th century. They include Gaskin’s “What is the White Man’s Burden?”, J. Dallas Bowser’s “Take Up the Black Man’s Burden” and Anna Manning Comfort’s “Home Burdens of Uncle Sam.” You can find them on pages 38-41 of TRB from the Choices Unit “Beyond Manifest Destiny: America Enters Imperialism.” If you lost your handouts, please either go to the Library on Edmodo or on the IB part of the website and download the Choices Unit as a PDF file and see pages 106-110 in the PDF file.
Once you have completed the readings, blog a 200 word minimum response to those poems. Please take into account the historical and theoretical context of these poems. What do all of these poems (“White Man’s Burden” and the various responses to it) teach us about the United States, US History, US at the turn of the 20th Century, American values, and why do they or the values they embody matter? What are the implications of these values on US culture, history, foreign policy, etc.? In your blog you may discuss different political issues or historical events these poems apply to, you may formulate an insightful question about these poems or one of the poems in particular and then attempt to answer your own question. You may also respond to another student’s post, building upon it, disagreeing with it or re-thinking it.
A few basic Blog rules:
1. Be respectful.
2. Please type your full name, a creative title, and the page numbers or chapter your blog entry is responding to on the top line of your comment. This will help us keep track of who is responding to what.
3. You may write in the first-person, informally. That being said, please write in complete sentences and keep your comments relevant and appropriate.
4. 200 word MINIMUM!
TEDDY ROOSEVELT, CHUCK NORRIS AND AMERICAN VALUES BLOG (due by Friday, August 10th) Read all of the instructions below and then post your blog entry as a COMMENT. Please read the following articles about Teddy Roosevelt and do a little OPVL analysis of each article. Also think about the discussion we had in class about Teddy Roosevelt, his values and what he represented in terms of “American-ness” as the US entered the 20th century (often called “America’s Century). Then think a bit about Chuck Norris—a fictional character that (like Teddy) is also a bit larger than life and quintessentially American. If you need a refresher course on Chuck Norris, please Google. Oh, wait a minute, Google won't search for Chuck Norris because Google knows you don't find Chuck Norris, he finds you. All jokes aside, for more Chuck Norris info, please see: http://www.chucknorris.com/ or http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ Teddy Roosevelt Articles Time Cover http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060703,00.html The Making of America--Teddy Roosevelt (we read it in class) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207820-1,00.html Newt Gingrich-Why we should study Teddy? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209230,00.html Karl Rove--Lessons from Larger than Life President http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207825,00.html River of Doubt http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207799-1,00.html Now, in a 200 word minimum blog post, based on your reading and our discussion in class, please write about what you think Teddy Roosevelt and Chuck Norris teach us about the United States, US History, US at the turn of the 20th Century, American values, and why do they or the values they embody matter? What are the implications of these values on US culture, history, foreign policy, etc.? You may also consider the readings (and Teddy v. Chuck Norris) in relation to their historical or theoretical context; you may bring up different political issues the readings might apply to, you may write about an aspect of the readings that you don’t understand, or something that jars you, you may formulate an insightful question about the readings and then attempt to answer your own question, or you may respond to another student’s post, building upon it, disagreeing with it, or re-thinking it. A few basic Blog rules: 1. Be respectful. 2. Please type your full name, a creative title, and the page numbers or chapter your blog entry is responding to on the top line of your comment. This will help us keep track of who is responding to what. 3. You may write in the first-person, informally. That being said, please write in complete sentences and keep your comments relevant and appropriate.
|
RSS Feed