Archive for the ‘Chapter 41’ Category

Chapter 41 questions

See? This isn’t so bad! THESE ARE DUE the first class period next week!!!

Yeah, I DO want you doing 11 – 13.

1. What did Clinton mean when he identified himself as a “New Democrat?” What groups of voters and supporters did he specifically court? How did he anger liberals in his own party? What major economic advantage did he have throughout his presidency?
2. What blunders did Clinton make early in his presidency? How was his wife involved?
3. Who were the Branch Davidians, and what made them newsworthy? What happened at Columbine and Ruby Ridge? (You may need to research outside the book to complete this.)
4. Name and describe the leader of the House Republicans in 1994. What tactics did he use to bring Republicans to power in the House? How did they create a backlash that benefited Clinton by 1996’s elections?
5. In what areas did Clinton struggle in foreign policy, specifically? What issues involved NATO during his presidency? How had NATO changed in the 1990s from its original membership and purpose? In which conflicts did he focus peace efforts worldwide?
6. On what charges was Clinton impeached? What was the original cause of the investigation of Clinton? Were these two things related?
7. How did the Clinton administration actually seem to be a continuation of the Reagan-Bush era, and why?
8. What was the controversy regarding the election of George W. Bush in 2000? How was it resolved?
9. Why did we invade Afghanistan? Who were the Taliban?
10. Why did we invade Iraq? What impact did the invasion of Iraq have on completing the mission in Afghanistan?

Now, especially given the events of the last few days and months, I want you to research online the following topics and write a 50 WORD summary of each. In each of these, please explain their connection to events in the last several months as well as their history.

11. In order to understand the information about the alleged Boston Marathon bombers, look up the Russian conflict in Chechnya. Here is a good place to start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3293441.stm
12. During the Clinton administration there were two policies/laws passed about social issues that are very important. So please provide an overview of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.
13. What was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999? What did it do, and what is its relationship to the New Deal? What effects did the quiet repeal of this bill have?

NOW’s Statement of Purpose

The National Organization for Women was founded in 1966, seeking to advocate for the full equality of women in society. The statement below was written by Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique.

Here is a link to the story of the founding of NOW: http://www.now.org/history/the_founding.html

Although 28 women originally talked of creating NOW in June of 1966, by October 300 people, both men and women, had joined as charter members of the organization. Robert Gray was one of the first men to join NOW. Here is a link to a document he wrote explaining why he believed that passage of the equal rights amendment would improve rights for men as well as women: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/7028

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of choice which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society.

Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child- rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives — still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

Today’s technology has reduced most of the productive chores which women once performed in the home and in mass-production industries based upon routine unskilled labor. This same technology has virtually eliminated the quality of muscular strength as a criterion for filling most jobs, while intensifying American industry’s need for creative intelligence. In view of this new industrial revolution created by automation in the mid-twentieth century, women can and must participate in old and new fields of society in full equality — or become permanent outsiders.

Despite all the talk about the status of American women in recent years, the actual position of women in the United States has declined, and is declining, to an alarming degree throughout the 1950’s and 60’s. Although 46.4% of all American women between the ages of 18 and 65 now work outside the home, the overwhelming majority — 75% — are in routine clerical, sales, or factory jobs, or they are household workers, cleaning women, hospital attendants. About two-thirds of Negro women workers are in the lowest paid service occupations. Working women are becoming increasingly — not less — concentrated on the bottom of the job ladder. As a consequence full-time women workers today earn on the average only 60% of what men earn, and that wage gap has been increasing over the past twenty-five years in every major industry group. In 1964, of all women with a yearly income, 89% earned under $5,000 a year; half of all full-time year round women workers earned less than $3,690; only 1.4% of full-time year round women workers had an annual income of $10,000 or more.

Further, with higher education increasingly essential in today’s society, too few women are entering and finishing college or going on to graduate or professional school. Today, women earn only one in three of the B.A.’s and M.A.’s granted, and one in ten of the Ph.D.’s.

In all the professions considered of importance to society, and in the executive ranks of industry and government, women are losing ground. Where they are present it is only a token handful. Women comprise less than 1% of federal judges; less than 4% of all lawyers; 7% of doctors. Yet women represent 51% of the U.S. population. And, increasingly, men are replacing women in the top positions in secondary and elementary schools, in social work, and in libraries — once thought to be women’s fields.

Official pronouncements of the advance in the status of women hide not only the reality of this dangerous decline, but the fact that nothing is being done to stop it. The excellent reports of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and of the State Commissions have not been fully implemented. Such Commissions have power only to advise. They have no power to enforce their recommendation; nor have they the freedom to organize American women and men to press for action on them. The reports of these commissions have, however, created a basis upon which it is now possible to build. Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex is now prohibited by federal law, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But although nearly one-third of the cases brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the first year dealt with sex discrimination and the proportion is increasing dramatically, the Commission has not made clear its intention to enforce the law with the same seriousness on behalf of women as of other victims of discrimination. Many of these cases were Negro women, who are the victims of double discrimination of race and sex. Until now, too few women’s organizations and official spokesmen have been willing to speak out against these dangers facing women. Too many women have been restrained by the fear of being called `feminist.” There is no civil rights movement to speak for women, as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak.

WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.

We realize that women’s problems are linked to many broader questions of social justice; their solution will require concerted action by many groups. Therefore, convinced that human rights for all are indivisible, we expect to give active support to the common cause of equal rights for all those who suffer discrimination and deprivation, and we call upon other organizations committed to such goals to support our efforts toward equality for women.

WE DO NOT ACCEPT the token appointment of a few women to high-level positions in government and industry as a substitute for serious continuing effort to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities. To this end, we urge American government and industry to mobilize the same resources of ingenuity and command with which they have solved problems of far greater difficulty than those now impeding the progress of women.

WE BELIEVE that this nation has a capacity at least as great as other nations, to innovate new social institutions which will enable women to enjoy the true equality of opportunity and responsibility in society, without conflict with their responsibilities as mothers and homemakers. In such innovations, America does not lead the Western world, but lags by decades behind many European countries. We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other. We question the present expectation that all normal women will retire from job or profession for 10 or 15 years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at a relatively minor level. This, in itself, is a deterrent to the aspirations of women, to their acceptance into management or professional training courses, and to the very possibility of equality of opportunity or real choice, for all but a few women. Above all, we reject the assumption that these problems are the unique responsibility of each individual woman, rather than a basic social dilemma which society must solve. True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child-care centers, which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown, and national programs to provide retraining for women who have chosen to care for their children full-time.

WE BELIEVE that it is as essential for every girl to be educated to her full potential of human ability as it is for every boy — with the knowledge that such education is the key to effective participation in today’s economy and that, for a girl as for a boy, education can only be serious where there is expectation that it will be used in society. We believe that American educators are capable of devising means of imparting such expectations to girl students. Moreover, we consider the decline in the proportion of women receiving higher and professional education to be evidence of discrimination. This discrimination may take the form of quotas against the admission of women to colleges, and professional schools; lack of encouragement by parents, counselors and educators; denial of loans or fellowships; or the traditional or arbitrary procedures in graduate and professional training geared in terms of men, which inadvertently discriminate against women. We believe that the same serious attention must be given to high school dropouts who are girls as to boys.

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility — hers, to dominate — his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

WE BELIEVE that women must now exercise their political rights and responsibilities as American citizens. They must refuse to be segregated on the basis of sex into separate-and-not-equal ladies’ auxiliaries in the political parties, and they must demand representation according to their numbers in the regularly constituted party committees — at local, state, and national levels — and in the informal power structure, participating fully in the selection of candidates and political decision-making, and running for office themselves.

IN THE INTERESTS OF THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF WOMEN, we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media, and in the texts, ceremonies, laws, and practices of our major social institutions. Such images perpetuate contempt for women by society and by women for themselves. We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices — in church, state, college, factory, or office — which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.

NOW WILL HOLD ITSELF INDEPENDENT OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY in order to mobilize the political power of all women and men intent on our goals. We will strive to ensure that no party, candidate, president, senator, governor, congressman, or any public official who betrays or ignores the principle of full equality between the sexes is elected or appointed to office. If it is necessary to mobilize the votes of men and women who believe in our cause, in order to win for women the final right to be fully free and equal human beings, we so commit ourselves.

WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity – – not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes – – but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

Crash Course: The Cold War

This can also be found here:Crash Course History: The Cold War

What does John Green say about the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How charming was Josef Stalin?
If the Cold War didn’t ever heat up in Europe, where DID it heat up?
Note the review of the three worlds.
Why didn’t Soviet Communism win in the end?

This also gives you a heads’ up about things we will talk about in the next few chapters.

Civil Liberties in Times of Emergency

With the capture and arrest of the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, there are three opinion pieces I want you to read, as well as the first three paragraphs in particular from the front page of Thursday’s paper. As you hopefully know, at first authorities considered charging the surviving bomber as an enemy combatant, and deliberately decided not to Mirandize him once he regained consciousness. Remember that he is a naturalized US citizen captured on American soil and has so far not been tied to any international terrorist organizations.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/boston-bomb-investigation-extends-to-russia/article_047ec30a-d724-5b49-9811-c4c0941fd3dc.html (first three paragraphs are particularly important).

First, from an editorial from the Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-president-or-terror-suspect-the-rule-of-law-applies/article_411048ff-1e15-5032-8b1c-9756bc4a7d93.html

And this one from conservative commentator George Will: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/george-will/george-will-the-shame-of-deference/article_20bdbf54-e3fd-5fdb-aab5-7d8bb93e623e.html

And from moderate Kathleen Parker: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/kathleen-parker/kathleen-parker-the-terror-of-not-knowing/article_033f880d-56ef-5535-b1c5-0b7df2d2b74b.html

This is a great chance to APPLY what we learn and use it to determine our course of action. It is also a good chance to review the Constitutional Amendments and Supreme Court decisions as well as other historical precedents that apply to our understanding of  civil liberties. We will be discussing this in class next Tuesday, April 30. Take notes and CONSIDER your answer to these questions:

What are civil liberties? What is the purpose of civil liberties? Are they negotiable or variable? What does history show us about limitations on civil liberties in times of war or crisis? What points does George Will make about previous instances of racially-based civil liberties decisions? What point does Kathleen Parker make about the ease of stripping those perceived as “alien” or “other” of their rights and claims to humanity?

Here is a link outlining very briefly the current case law on the matter of enemy combatants and civil liberties: http://web.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/index.php?action=showtopic&topicid=24

Manuel Noriega: An Overview of a Strange Career

Read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6983752.stm

American Tune

“American Tune”

by Paul Simon

Many’s the time I’ve been mistaken
And many times confused
Yes, and I’ve often felt forsaken
And certainly misused
Oh, but I’m alright, I’m alright
I’m just weary to my bones
Still, you don’t expect to be
Bright and bon vivant
So far a-way from home, so far away from home

And I don’t know a soul who’s not been battered
I don’t have a friend who feels at ease
I don’t know a dream that’s not been shattered
or driven to its knees
but it’s alright, it’s alright
for we lived so well so long
Still, when I think of the
road we’re traveling on
I wonder what’s gone wrong
I can’t help it, I wonder what has gone wrong

And I dreamed I was dying
I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me
Smiled reassuringly
And I dreamed I was flying
And high up above my eyes could clearly see
The Statue of Liberty
Sailing away to sea
And I dreamed I was flying

We come on the ship they call the Mayflower
We come on the ship that sailed the moon
We come in the age’s most uncertain hours
and sing an American tune
Oh, and it’s alright, it’s alright, it’s alright
You can’t be forever blessed
Still, tomorrow’s going to be another working day
And I’m trying to get some rest
That’s all I’m trying to get some rest

The Baby Boom- why it’s all about them

They did create the “Me” Decade, after all. From bobby sox to Woodstock to their fear of wrinkles, I present… YOUR PARENTS! No, no, I’m kidding.

Kind of.

Here are some great links to explain why the Baby Boomers changed everything.

Boomer Century, from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/boomercentury/ This one takes a more academic look….

Baby Boomer Headquarters: http://www.bbhq.com/whatsabm.htm This one is by boomers, but still has a good overview on the home page.

Baby Boomers.com: http://www.babyboomers.com/ This one is hilarious, since it deals with issues for geezers like how to take your medicine and sign up for medicare. My favorite part for you, though, is the side section with links for major events for the years 1946-1964. That is actually good for review!

Aging Hipsters: http://www.aginghipsters.com/ I think that title says it all.

41 Outlines- for extra credit by Monday

You may get extra extra credit for doing these in FRQ form– concentrate on creating a strong thesis statement answering the prompt.

These are due MONDAY, MAY 2!!!!! Do these instead of terms.

I. The presidency of Bill Clinton- was it a success?
A. The campaign- why wasn’t “41” re-elected?
1. What was Ross Perot’s stake, and what did he accomplish?
B. How did Clinton take risks?
1. What’s a “new Democrat?”
2. What were his early failures?
3. Was the First Lady a help or a hindrance?
C. What happened with the budget?
D. Violence and crime challenges
1. Brady Bill
2. Showdown at Waco
3. Oklahoma City and Timothy McVeigh
4. Columbine
5. A Million Moms
E. The Republican opposition and the Contract With America
1. What did it promise?
2. What happened in Congress?
3. What’s an “unfunded mandate?”
4. Reform- too much or not enough?
5. End results?
F. Taking on entitlements
1. Welfare
2. Affirmative Action
G. Economics
1. dot.coms go wild
2. free trade or protectionism?
3. the challenge of globalism (see China)
H. Foreign troubles
1. China
2. Haiti
3. Somalia
4. Rwanda
5. What does “Balkanization” mean? (Use a dictionary)
6. Israel and the PLO
I. Whitewater and Monica Lewinski
1. What are “high crimes and misdemeanors?”
J. Ultimately, was Clinton a failure?

II. The presidency of George W. Bush- how do you predict history will judge this administration?
A. The election- what went wrong?
B. What are red states and blue states?
C. Which party is in charge?
D. 9/11
1. What was Al Qaeda?
2. Who was bin Laden?
3. How was Afghanistan involved?
4. Why was the Patriot Act passed?
5. What was the purpose of Guantanamo?
E. Why did we invade Iraq?
1. WMD and terror
2. Saddam Hussein and the Bush family legacy
3. Did the UN fail?
4. Can we “nation-build?”

F. Equality and Fairness at home- what were the Bollinger cases?
G. What problems faced both parties by 2004?

Chapter 41 terms

Terms for chapter 41

DUE TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

William J. Clinton, Brady Bill, Ross Perot,
Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle, Carol Moseley-Braun
Bob Dole, “Contract With America,” Reform Party
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Branch Davidians
“don’t ask, don’t tell,” budget surpluses, Oklahoma City bombing
“new Democrat, Democratic Leadership Council, “balanced ticket,”
Monica Lewinksi, impeachment, “high crimes and misdemeanors”
Persian Gulf War, Hopwood v. Texas, Proposition 209,
WTO, GATT, free trade, “unfunded mandates,”
“globalization,” Somalia, Haiti,
Rwanda, ethnic cleansing, Balkan crisis
Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, Kosovo
Kenneth Starr, NAFTA, John McCain
“patients’ bill of rights,” George W. Bush, Green Party,
Ralph Nader, chads, Richard Cheney,
Bush v. Gore (see election of 2000), “compassionate conservatism,” Osama bin Laden
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, “red state,” “blue state,”
USA Patriot Act, Al Qaeda, habeas corpus,
“axis of evil,” WMD, “nation-building”
Saddam Hussein, No Child Left Behind, John Kerry, Taliban, Guantanamo