[9.27.11] Frontline

Facts:
1) The president and Congress were willing to do anything for war after the September 11 attack. Congress provided a "blank check"; the United States were to use any means at their disposal.
2) Cofer Black was in charage of anti-terrorist efforts at that time.
3) Black strongly urged the United States to defeat Bin Laden and to start the war.
4) Graystone was the codename of the plan to bring down al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda supporters. It was the largest covert action since the cold war.
5) On September 26, 2001, American soldiers flew in to Afghanistan. They worked with locals and also tried to minimize the American footprint there.
6) The CIA fired at a car that was traveling in Yemen with a weapon that many did not know the CIA had.
7) Stress and duress techniques to interrogate... These were called "enhanced interrogation techniques."
8) Black sites are prisons that exist around the world. There are around 200 in number and are run & paid for by the CIA.
9) There are 100s of secret locations that are part of the NSA. They seem like "normal" buildings from the outside. Apparently, it is like a secret world; although there may be only four stories above ground, the building may extend for many stories under.
10) There was a terrorist threat the week before Obama's inauguration.

Questions:
1) What the attack in Yemen necessary? Was it, like a certain man said in the program, like "buying eggs"? Does the United States have a license to kill whoever they wish to?
2) Aren't the black sites inhumane and should not be allowed?
3)What is the difference between a covert action and military operation?
4) Would intercepting people's cell phone conversations be an invasion of privacy? Is this justified?
5) Is there definite proof of the "secret locations" that are run my the NSA? Where is all of this money funding all of these buildings coming from?
6) What are other countries' opinions of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
7) According to a woman in the program, "intelligence officials don't exactly know what they're doing." How do they not? Why?
8) Is the United States too paranoid? (Seems similar to Cold War)
9) Is security (eg wire-tapping, airport security, etc) too strict?
10) How many Americans know about what we just learned?

[9.23.11] Unit 1 Interview

I interviewed my cousin on simple questions about the government. Her answers were surprisingly simple and (not-so-surprisingly) blunt. She says that the purpose of government is to guide the people and keep them "from their own nature." She has a pessimistic (but maybe true?) view on humankind; just as how Machiavelli believed that human beings are dishonest and ungrateful, she does as well. My cousin also believed in Machiavelli's idea that rulers should use fear to command the public. "However," she said, "If a leader is too cruel, or passes laws that do not benefit the citizens, or does not reign efficiently, this may lead to the people rebelling." Despite this, she had nothing bad to say about democracy; she stated that a good point of democracy was that people get a say in the government. She also said that a pro of autocracy is that there is less "chaos" within the government, but, however, the ruler may become crazy with the power. She also sensed, like the founding fathers, that putting too much power into one person was not a good choice. She also does not completely trust the people, just like the founding fathers didn't.

My cousin believes that the government is a huge part in our lives, but, since she has little interest in this topic, politics, to her, is just "crap that happens in the government and in the country." (Politics and government are intertwined, so I guess she does not care much about the government.) Interestingly enough, when asked about what unalienable rights people should have and what values or rights the founding fathers considered while writing the Constitution, she said something that sounded overly familiar: "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to own property." While she answered my question, I couldn't help but wonder if she really thought that those rights were unalienable, or if it was because it was what she grew up with. In 5th and 8th grade just about every history student (I think) was quizzed on the words of both the Declaration and the Preamble. In addition, she thinks that the federal government should be more powerful than the states because "if states have more power, then the effects of the Articles of Confederation will repeat, and then we'll be doomed."

[9.22.11] A People's History of the United States

The first idea that presents itself to the reader is fairly interesting: "Is the Constitution really equal?" Many rights are certainly guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, but these "rights" only applied to, like the reading said, Caucasian men who owned land. Does "We the People" not apply to the whole population, which consisted of women, slaves, and men without property as well as the rich? People were angered at the bluntness of Beard's statements. Personally, I agree with him. Beard stated that the rich "must, in their own interest, either control the government directly or control the laws by which government operates"; the Founding Fathers did just that. In both 8th and 11th grade, where we dove deeper into the history of the United States, my teachers stated that the Constitution was meant to be "equal," but it was written by wealthy Caucasian men (the popular quote from Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" comes to mind). This leads me to my first question: If ALL people were not included in the Constitution (at the beginning, at least), were things really "equal"?

Thomas Jefferson's opinion about how rebellion is a good thing is interesting. What are other people's opinions about this statement? I personally agree; it is a sort of "test" that the government faces: can it hold out against a rebellion or not?

It seems that to Madison and Hamilton that the government is a role model, or a "leader" to the people. They call a "well-constructed Senate" a necessitity that provides "defence to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions." However, what if the government itself makes their own mistakes? Did the founding fathers consider there would be corruption in the government itself?

How come the Supreme Court did not rule the Sedition Act unconstitutional? Technically, it would have denied the people's rights to free speech - if they were to be "punished" for what they said, why have the first amendment at all?

[9.20.11] Political Cartoon

1) Do you agree with this cartoon?

2) How might this relate to the founding fathers' ideas of government?

3) What sort of things would cause someone to create this cartoon? (Specific examples?)

[9.15.11] Chapter 1 Reading Assignment

1) Why do Americans "express ambivalence toward the political process" while taking pride in their form of government at the same time?

2) If many are unhappy about the slow pace that the government deals with the nation's problems and "often seem unwilling to accept the realities of democratic practice," why don't they try and change it?

3) Why were the fifty thousand immigration slots only set aside for the people in countries where a low number of visa requests had been granted in the previous five years? Why not allow more people who come from other countries in "crisis" come in?

4) Isn't questioning Arab and Muslim men living in the country legally, as well as fingerprinting and photographing people coming from certain North African and Middle Eastern countries, a bit too extreme?

5) Isn't it a bit unfair that there is less economic security for children than for senior citizens? Will more people look out for the children who don't have a say in the government?

6) Would the "political machines" in the United States back in the day be an example of identity politics?

7) Why has identity politics "intensified" even though racial and ethnic boundaries began to blur?

8) Why is a basic function of government to establish rules under which interests can compete? Isn't it to simply just establish rules?

9) Would the founding fathers disagree greatly with the government we have now? ("....Spoke of a united country, a people with common ancestry, a shared language, the same religion, and a commitment to the same political principles.")

10) Would the law that was passed in early-twentieth-century Iowa an abuse of power? Why weren't people living in the United States allowed to speak the language they wanted? Is there something in the Constitution that is against this?

11) Why were Mexicans "whites" in the 1920 and 1950 census?

12) How come people considered themselves different races than what others thought they were?

13) How is the government sure that each household filled out its census truthfully?

14) What is the limit for immigration?

15) Are there many immigrating to the United States today?

16) Would rejecting people (who tried to immigrate to the United States) from entering the United States a violation of their unalienable rights? Or does it not count because they are not citizens?

17) Is too much American pride a bad thing? (Eg celebrating the death of bin Laden)

18) What is that "one" idea from "E Pluribus Unum"? It seems like many people disagree on a variety of topics.

19) Does diversity have a "limit"? How far are Americans willing to go?

20) Were the Founding Fathers slightly hypocritical? While each person was supposed to have their own say, Jefferson "argues that only educated citizens would be able to understand public issues, elect virtuous leaders,..." etc.

[9.11.11] Political Issues I Care About

Similar to another classmate, I will admit at the beginning that I hardly know anything about political issues. History is not my strongest subject, either. I also hope that AP Government will allow me to learn about the United States government and the issues that are going on in the country today, as well as help me develop my own opinion on those issues.

Despite my lack of knowledge on politics, I have two political issues that I care somewhat strongly about. The first is the issue about gay rights. I believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry; I mean, why shouldn't they? Is it a crime? Is it not "natural"*? People should be allowed to love whomever they choose. Like Hope said, isn't everyone supposed to be equal? African Americans and women gained their rights. Why can't homosexuals have theirs? There is so much pressure put on teenagers (for example) about their sexuality. Some kids were eventually driven to suicide because of their looks and/or sexual orientation; people that were not as accepting (or people that just assume) bully these kids. It is disappointing and saddening to see that people do not accept differences.

*Some studies suggest that sexual orientation is determined by genetics. There have been signs of homosexuality in animals, too. And Tango Makes Three is a children's book based on a true story about two male penguins who tried to hatch a rock that seemed like an egg. That rock was eventually replaced by a real egg; the egg hatched and the baby penguin grew up healthily.

Roy and Silo, the two male penguins.

The second issue that I would like to address is the topic of abortion. For the most part, I believe that it should not be allowed. It is almost the same thing as killing a full-grown person; the embryo or fetus is deprived of a chance to "live." Some of the exceptions for abortion (these are the ones that first come to mind) should be in the cases of rape, or when the mother's life is threatened.