This is where our daily reactions to the readings will be posted. Also, we will be able to reply to each other and continue discussions outside of class.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Reflection Papers for the First Week of April
Lets post all of our reaction papers for the week as attachments to this post.
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Government and Society 10th Journal
Throughout the reading, social policy is discussed at length. The three main goals of social policies include: protecting the people against certain risks and insecurities they would face throughout their lives, promoting equality, and assisting the poor. In my opinion, the equality of opportunities and assisting the poor goals seem very controversial. I am suspicious of the amount we assist the poor. I strongly believe that some people may take advantage of the government assistance and freeload off the system. I do not think that there is anything wrong with helping someone who is legitimately trying to help themselves, but some people are too lazy to work if they are being given money anyway. I also strongly disagree with the reading when the author says that poverty is maybe the product of past inequality of opportunity. I realistically believe that all groups were previously discriminated against have had ample time to overcome this past inequality. There are many examples of this with minorities holding high positions throughout out society. I am strongly surprised how biased this reading was to a liberal protective. I had not received this notion from any of the previous readings. Understandably, there is nothing wrong with efforts to help underprivileged Americans in their quest to better themselves, but we should not give a false impression that they can “make it” without helping themselves as well.
After last night's history forum, I realized that the history being taught in many schools is very one-sided. I feel that students should be exposed to both the negative and positive things that occurred in our past. Our complete history is what defines America, and many of the negative things that have happened have shaped the culture and the way of life for people all over the country. IIt is just easier to understand everyone's differences when you know their complete past. I also agree with Dr. Nash in saying that there is a certain unknown time when it is appropriate to start teaching children about the parts of the past we are trying to forget, but there is defintiely a time when it needs to happen. I think that children will respect America and feel more patriotic when they learn that our nation has made some great mistakes but still has overcome them. America has been run by human beings since it was founded, so naturally there are grave mistakes in our history. Also, another part of history that is not taught or taught in passing is Asian history. I took World History in high school, and we marginally touched on Asian history. It is important to study Asian history even though America has not had a long history with them. This is part of the bias as to what should be taught in schools though. Maybe a nationalized education system would be good to implement because we could get a well-rounded history that included the entire world in a world history course!! With this point, Dr. Nash mentioned that this would take away freedom from the teachers, but I think that a teacher is free to present the material in a creative way that a student will be interested in learning. It is the way the material is presented to the student and what the student remembers that matters. A good teacher will find freedom in the way he or she presents the material! (Just wanted to add my little blurb to that!!)
(I am posting Nick's comment because the computer is not letting him post for some reason)
In an extension of the debate in class last week, I have done more research, and believe that I have come to a final conclusion. "Mr. Steven Hadley said the Iraqi people, despite their suffering, believe they are better off now than under Saddam Hussein. The key to success is to provide security in the country, particularly around Baghdad, he said." I agree with everything in this quote. Although there is not much action or progress being made, that we hear about, it seems to me that the Iraqi people just need something constant. They need proof that if they do follow in this new form of life that we are trying to implement into their lives, that they will be safe. To overtake a country such as that one is not a large problem, but to get the people to believe in a completely new system of government is. Enough blood has been shed, we need to give these people protection because they are ready to listen and follow. Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 50,000 and could be significantly higher; the estimates vary widely. More than 3,200 members of the U.S. military have died during the war, and more than 24,000 have been wounded in hostile action. So obviously these people realize that this isn't a matter of war, because we are so overpowering they wouldn't have a shot. We need to focus on creating a safe environment for them, that they will be proud of and hold on to. Although this is easier said than done, this war is over and we (congress) need to back up the troops whole-heartedly and lets get this over with. If they need money give them the money and lets do it the right way, so that we don't have problems arise later.
I have to agree with hanna on her comment. This discussion kind of reminds me of what was said by Dr. Reinhard in the early days of class about groups. The history that is taught in the United States today is all very one sided. History books do not tell who did something on the other side of the battle field do they? No I believe that everything is about what the Americans did or it is constrewed in some type of manner to get that way.
Now on to social policy, I believe that in all it is a very controversial subject. For example we want to help the poor but then we want equal opportunity. I have to also agree with rachel on this subject, there are people out there who take advantage and try to get a free ride through life provided by the government. This is something that is being overlooked by the government however. If this is allowed to continue in the future, whether we have equal opportunity or not our economy will suffer if these people are allowed to do this and it will begin to show.
Last week's debate really made me think about certain things. There was one point made that I would like to address. Now before I begin, I feel as though we should not pull out of Iraq until their government is stable enough to stand on its own. Hanna made the point in class that technically we did what we said we were going to do in the war, so if we pulled out we would not be leaving defeated. This is very true. Like Hanna said, the government said that we were going to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, destroy the weapons of mass destruction, set up a government, and help draft a new constitution for Iraq. We did that. Minus the destroying of the weapons of mass destruction, this conflict has been a great success. Honestly, we cannot hold the w.o.m.d. against Bush because he went off of the intelligence he had at the time. Yes, it was wrong, but so was the Y2K theory but we did not crucify people for believing that. So if we pulled out today, really no one has the right to say a damn thing about us chickening out. Now again, in my personal opinion, we should do the morally right thing and stay in Iraq until its government can stand on its own two feet. We also need to make sure that when they can, they do not try and attack us. That, however, is another response for another day.
As far as the discussion on the possibilities for social welfare in the US I don't think it really depends on the distribution of spending. As the book brought up, many Americans don't put much support into the promotion of welfare systems. It might seem more of a sensible thing to other countries but in America it seems we expect people to get a job and do the 9 to 5 and have it be their life. Being employed is a major part of American not just as a source of income but as a sense of working hard to make money and live the American dream. Just look at how much more vacation people in places such as France have, even lower level workers. It seems Americans look at this in a collective action viewpoint. People on welfare get benefits coming from their pocketbooks while they still have to work. They have their life run by their jobs while giving their money towards supposed "freeloaders".
I. Truman’s motives a. save American lives b. the American people wanted the war to be over and their troops home by Christmas c. to seem powerful and strong to the American people because if he did not get unconditional surrender he would give hope to those who still wanted to fight in Japan d. to impress the Soviet Union and end the war before they could enter and stop them from obtaining Asia territory or let them have any control in Americas post war occupation in Japan
When I went to the Patriotism and History speaker this week the first thing that I noticed was how qualified he was. He was a UCLA history professor and has won many awards for his work. I enjoyed how he at the start seemed to outline his speech and gave you a few things to think about. He said that we should expose and critique America to try to improve it as both historians and reformers. He also brought up example of people who had been ruined because they tried to do this such as David Muzzey when he wrote text that was called “treason text”. He said that there are two different opinions on this subject and they are authoritarian and democratic. Authoritarian is when you love it or leave it and democratic is when you think critically. He leaves you with two things the first is when he says that truth is the first causality in war and the other is the question of “can a scholars history be the publics history?”.
After listening to the history speaker this past week, I found it worth my time. I didn’t realize that he had done so many things such as writing so many books. He is very serious about what he does and knows a great deal about it as well. After winning so many awards and being a top UCLA professor, his knowledge on history should be very outstanding. When he got to the subject towards history in school, I found that very interesting. How we study history about America and other countries, but not all countries study history about us. Its funny how there are so many high schools across America, but hardly any of them will study the same kind of history. From different states to different counties having their own way of teaching history. So their knowledge on history is only to the point of what is taught, because not all schools touch on the same points of history.
10 comments:
Government and Society
10th Journal
Throughout the reading, social policy is discussed at length. The three main goals of social policies include: protecting the people against certain risks and insecurities they would face throughout their lives, promoting equality, and assisting the poor. In my opinion, the equality of opportunities and assisting the poor goals seem very controversial. I am suspicious of the amount we assist the poor. I strongly believe that some people may take advantage of the government assistance and freeload off the system. I do not think that there is anything wrong with helping someone who is legitimately trying to help themselves, but some people are too lazy to work if they are being given money anyway. I also strongly disagree with the reading when the author says that poverty is maybe the product of past inequality of opportunity. I realistically believe that all groups were previously discriminated against have had ample time to overcome this past inequality. There are many examples of this with minorities holding high positions throughout out society.
I am strongly surprised how biased this reading was to a liberal protective. I had not received this notion from any of the previous readings. Understandably, there is nothing wrong with efforts to help underprivileged Americans in their quest to better themselves, but we should not give a false impression that they can “make it” without helping themselves as well.
After last night's history forum, I realized that the history being taught in many schools is very one-sided. I feel that students should be exposed to both the negative and positive things that occurred in our past. Our complete history is what defines America, and many of the negative things that have happened have shaped the culture and the way of life for people all over the country. IIt is just easier to understand everyone's differences when you know their complete past.
I also agree with Dr. Nash in saying that there is a certain unknown time when it is appropriate to start teaching children about the parts of the past we are trying to forget, but there is defintiely a time when it needs to happen. I think that children will respect America and feel more patriotic when they learn that our nation has made some great mistakes but still has overcome them. America has been run by human beings since it was founded, so naturally there are grave mistakes in our history.
Also, another part of history that is not taught or taught in passing is Asian history. I took World History in high school, and we marginally touched on Asian history. It is important to study Asian history even though America has not had a long history with them. This is part of the bias as to what should be taught in schools though. Maybe a nationalized education system would be good to implement because we could get a well-rounded history that included the entire world in a world history course!!
With this point, Dr. Nash mentioned that this would take away freedom from the teachers, but I think that a teacher is free to present the material in a creative way that a student will be interested in learning. It is the way the material is presented to the student and what the student remembers that matters. A good teacher will find freedom in the way he or she presents the material! (Just wanted to add my little blurb to that!!)
(I am posting Nick's comment because the computer is not letting him post for some reason)
In an extension of the debate in class last week, I have done more research, and believe that I have come to a final conclusion. "Mr. Steven Hadley said the Iraqi people, despite their suffering, believe they are better off now than under Saddam Hussein. The key to success is to provide security in the country, particularly around Baghdad, he said." I agree with everything in this quote. Although there is not much action or progress being made, that we hear about, it seems to me that the Iraqi people just need something constant. They need proof that if they do follow in this new form of life that we are trying to implement into their lives, that they will be safe. To overtake a country such as that one is not a large problem, but to get the people to believe in a completely new system of government is. Enough blood has been shed, we need to give these people protection because they are ready to listen and follow. Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 50,000 and could be significantly higher; the estimates vary widely. More than 3,200 members of the U.S. military have died during the war, and more than 24,000 have been wounded in hostile action. So obviously these people realize that this isn't a matter of war, because we are so overpowering they wouldn't have a shot. We need to focus on creating a safe environment for them, that they will be proud of and hold on to. Although this is easier said than done, this war is over and we (congress) need to back up the troops whole-heartedly and lets get this over with. If they need money give them the money and lets do it the right way, so that we don't have problems arise later.
Nick Dubuisson
I have to agree with hanna on her comment. This discussion kind of reminds me of what was said by Dr. Reinhard in the early days of class about groups. The history that is taught in the United States today is all very one sided. History books do not tell who did something on the other side of the battle field do they? No I believe that everything is about what the Americans did or it is constrewed in some type of manner to get that way.
Now on to social policy, I believe that in all it is a very controversial subject. For example we want to help the poor but then we want equal opportunity. I have to also agree with rachel on this subject, there are people out there who take advantage and try to get a free ride through life provided by the government. This is something that is being overlooked by the government however. If this is allowed to continue in the future, whether we have equal opportunity or not our economy will suffer if these people are allowed to do this and it will begin to show.
Justin Huckaby
8th Response
Last week's debate really made me think about certain things. There was one point made that I would like to address. Now before I begin, I feel as though we should not pull out of Iraq until their government is stable enough to stand on its own. Hanna made the point in class that technically we did what we said we were going to do in the war, so if we pulled out we would not be leaving defeated. This is very true. Like Hanna said, the government said that we were going to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein, destroy the weapons of mass destruction, set up a government, and help draft a new constitution for Iraq. We did that. Minus the destroying of the weapons of mass destruction, this conflict has been a great success. Honestly, we cannot hold the w.o.m.d. against Bush because he went off of the intelligence he had at the time. Yes, it was wrong, but so was the Y2K theory but we did not crucify people for believing that. So if we pulled out today, really no one has the right to say a damn thing about us chickening out. Now again, in my personal opinion, we should do the morally right thing and stay in Iraq until its government can stand on its own two feet. We also need to make sure that when they can, they do not try and attack us. That, however, is another response for another day.
As far as the discussion on the possibilities for social welfare in the US I don't think it really depends on the distribution of spending. As the book brought up, many Americans don't put much support into the promotion of welfare systems. It might seem more of a sensible thing to other countries but in America it seems we expect people to get a job and do the 9 to 5 and have it be their life. Being employed is a major part of American not just as a source of income but as a sense of working hard to make money and live the American dream. Just look at how much more vacation people in places such as France have, even lower level workers. It seems Americans look at this in a collective action viewpoint. People on welfare get benefits coming from their pocketbooks while they still have to work. They have their life run by their jobs while giving their money towards supposed "freeloaders".
I. Truman’s motives
a. save American lives
b. the American people wanted the war to be over and their troops home by Christmas
c. to seem powerful and strong to the American people because if he did not get unconditional surrender he would give hope to those who still wanted to fight in Japan
d. to impress the Soviet Union and end the war before they could enter and stop them from obtaining Asia territory or let them have any control in Americas post war occupation in Japan
When I went to the Patriotism and History speaker this week the first thing that I noticed was how qualified he was. He was a UCLA history professor and has won many awards for his work. I enjoyed how he at the start seemed to outline his speech and gave you a few things to think about. He said that we should expose and critique America to try to improve it as both historians and reformers. He also brought up example of people who had been ruined because they tried to do this such as David Muzzey when he wrote text that was called “treason text”. He said that there are two different opinions on this subject and they are authoritarian and democratic. Authoritarian is when you love it or leave it and democratic is when you think critically. He leaves you with two things the first is when he says that truth is the first causality in war and the other is the question of “can a scholars history be the publics history?”.
After listening to the history speaker this past week, I found it worth my time. I didn’t realize that he had done so many things such as writing so many books. He is very serious about what he does and knows a great deal about it as well. After winning so many awards and being a top UCLA professor, his knowledge on history should be very outstanding. When he got to the subject towards history in school, I found that very interesting. How we study history about America and other countries, but not all countries study history about us. Its funny how there are so many high schools across America, but hardly any of them will study the same kind of history. From different states to different counties having their own way of teaching history. So their knowledge on history is only to the point of what is taught, because not all schools touch on the same points of history.
Post a Comment