Tom Kelly Final

 Tom Kelly- Final Exam

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502081.html

For Germany’s Former Communists, a Stunning Resurgence

Berlin-Nineteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old East German Communist Party is making a comeback.

          Almost two decades after the Germany’s reunification the Communist Party is beginning to gain political ground. After a long political hiatus and all but forgotten, the Communist Party in Germany has now won seats in western and eastern Germany. Drawing most of their support from the former East Germany which has lagged behind the West economically, it supports worker rights and a “wealth tax”. The increased Communist Party support threatens the established political coalition within German politics, but it remains to be seen if this is a lasting movement or a momentary surge. Either way the Communist Party could undo the progress of the last nineteen years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the forty-five years of American supervised prosperity in West Germany.

            In the closing days of the Second World War the Allied leaders met in Yalta, on the Black Sea. In February of 1945 at what would become known as the Yalta Conference Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin discussed the structure of post-war Europe. It was agreed that Germany’s capital Berlin would be partitioned between the victorious countries. However rifts began to open between the Allies. At the conference Stalin’s demands took a forefront. With his armies within 40 miles of Berlin he had considerable leverage. Stalin asserted that territories liberated by the Red Army would remain under Russian control. Churchill, weary of the growing Soviet menace and mistrust of Stalin opposed him. Churchill was especially concerned about the fate of Poland. The freedom of Poland, which had caused the outbreak of war, was endangered by Stalin’s military presence there. Stalin was forced to relent to allowing free elections in Poland following the end of the war. Roosevelt was forced to concede to Stalin in order to bring Soviet troops into the war against Japan and in the hope of convincing the USSR to join the United Nations. Following the war Stalin refused to allow democracy in any of the liberated territories, including Poland where a puppet Communist government was established.

            The failures of Yalta were apparent from the start. Stalin’s contribution to the end of the war against Japan was minimal and the Soviet occupations of Eastern European countries extinguished any hopes for democracy in the Soviet sphere of influence. Tensions escalated as the Americans rebuilt almost all of Western Europe returning prosperity to destroyed nations whilst millions lived in deprivation under Soviet control. In June 1948 the Soviets cut off transportation in or out of Berlin, which though portioned between the powers, was in the Soviet zone of occupation. In what would become known as the Berlin Airlift thousands of tons of goods and supplies were dropped by plane into besieged Berlin. They would continue to fly in coal, clothing, flour, food and even candy until May 11, 1949.

During the 1960′s a grimmer form of Soviet oppression would be erected that would literally divide East from West Berlin. The wall would come to symbolize the free West and imprisoned East. In 1963 during a visit to Berlin, President Kennedy would denounce the wall as a, “vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system”(Speech). During his now famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate in June 1987 President Reagan would call it a “scar” (8.2). The American support of Western Germany would cause unbridled prosperity. Rebuilt from ruins by the Marshall Plan and economically aided by American loans the West German economy “Wirtschaftswunder” or economic miracle made it possible for Germany to return as a European power during the Cold War. Reagan would say that, “Freedom leads to prosperity” West Germany is a prime example of it. While the West thrived throughout the Cold War Eastern Germany stagnated with inflation and privation of even basic goods. Those who attempted to cross from East Germany to the West risked their lives and over 100 dead trying to reach freedom. Kennedy would admit that, “Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put up a wall to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.”

            When the wall came down in 1989 to paraphrase one Berliner’s graffiti, beliefs became reality. For the first time since the end of the Second World War there was one Germany, no longer divided by East and West. Reunification had its problems though. West Germany’s economy was burdened by having the form a new currency which caused inflation because of the East’s low valued notes. Also the West would spend millions annually to bring economic development to the former East German regions which lagged helplessly behind the West. Former Soviet established and sponsored agencies and businesses collapsed without government backing and large numbers of East Germans found themselves unemployed. Even with the West’s help today not all the problems of reunification have been solved.

Now the Communist Party in Germany is appealing to those who have not benefited from the reunification particularly in the East, but surprisingly have won seats in the Western provinces of Germany for the first time. This boost in support is undermining the power of Germany’s present coalition between the Social Democrats and Christian Democrats. Both of these parties have weakened their party platforms in order to better cooperate, which have driven more voters to the Communists. Despite claims by Communist politicians that the Berlin Wall was meant to keep Western Germans from coming to East Germany, and that they supported the former East German secret police, Germans still see promise in their agenda. In 2003, then Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Social Democrat cut pension and unemployment benefits. Germans are increasingly worried about losing jobs to foreign labors as a result of globalization; even though unemployment levels are dropping unemployment levels in Germany remain high. If the Communist Party continues its political momentum it could undo a half century of democracy building. The Communists call for closer ties with other Communist nations such as Venezuela and Cuba, and skeptics warn that Germany’s military and peace keeping commitments in Afghanistan and Africa would be withdrawn. Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov in 1948 spoke of the importance of Germany, “what happens to Germany, happens to Europe”. A resurgence of Communism in Germany could have lasting effects throughout Europe, especially former Soviet territories which are economically struggling or disillusioned by democracy. What is happening in Germany today may have

A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising

Headline: A costly date for Spitzer, but not so surprising, scientists say

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer, Faye Flam, March 12, 2008

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/16590161.html

  

Lede:

Why would someone as rich and powerful as Eliot Spitzer put his family, his job, and his promising future on the line for an alleged $4,000 date with a prostitute?

Is this pathological or inherent in human nature?

 Scientists says it’s more likely to be the latter. They attribute this kind of behavior to natural promiscuity combined with opportunity – along with a risk-taking personality common to men such as Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy. It’s what makes them seek office and what makes us vote for them.  

Core Issues:

This article raises the question of whether the same qualities we are drawn to in our leaders are those that lead them to make mistakes and stray from the straight and narrow.  We desire someone who is charismatic, decisive, and confident making our decisions.  An individual who is unable to take risk, or who is incapable of demanding attention would never become elected.  But when is this persona acceptable?  Should it be only an act, a tool used in leadership that can be turned off in private, or do we expect these Type-A personalities to accept heightened fame and power graciously, without ever using it to their advantage?  I am not suggesting Governor Spitzer’s actions are in any way defendable, but am brought to another key argument of illegality vs. immorality.  I’ll ask which is worse in the eye of the public, and which actions are excusable…which are deplorable.  We’ve already decided that political scandal is no new finding in recent years, but the immediate and widespread publication of them may be.  We live in an age where nothing is sacred, nothing is secret, and we all find ourselves living under a microscope.  Is this never-abating scrutiny fair to our leaders, and are some things better off unknown?

Historical Analysis:

We are inevitably drawn to powerful leaders, those we wish to be like and who make us feel powerful.  We can trace this trend through history, and the 20^th century is no exception.  We can see the attraction to Theodore Roosevelt, whose approach to foreign policy, derived from an African proverb, was to speak softly and carry a big stick.  Americans who may or may not have been confrontational were pleased with a leader who was committed to eloquent diplomacy while leveraging an underlying threat of conflict (A).  This again is seen when President Truman is elected on a promise to end WWII, a promise that he delivered after having the resolve to drop “THE SUPER BOMB” on Japanese soil.  As we travel forward in time we meet John F. Kennedy, a handsome young man whose unwavering confidence and classic demeanor won the hearts of a nation.  JFK utilized these qualities to confront the Soviet Union head on during the Cuban Missile Crisis (6.6) – a conflict that never came to a head yet can be considered “the most dangerous moment in human history.” (B)  Moving further still we come to one of our most recent presidents, Bill Clinton (or Slick Willy) who lead the country through two terms of prosperity and peace, while trading on a magnetic personality and widespread popularity.

The aforementioned undoubtedly utilized personal gifts to their advantage in political situations, but we must remember that these men are merely a subset of our own population.  Like any other group, politicians may have honest moral people and deceitful sociopaths amongst themselves.  It must also be understood that if a single person is able to convince an entire nation and electoral body that he is the one best candidate to represent the United States, they must have an understanding of persuasion.  It is up to the individual to focus this solely upon political outlets, or choose to abuse a position of power and dominance. 

Governor Spitzer’s case reminds us of this human factor in our elected officials, but also begs the question if immorality constitutes illegality and, more importantly, does immoral behavior impair ones ability to lead.  We have seen both political and social scandal rock the political world before, yet each case is held to different standards.  When the Watergate Scandal (7.1) surfaced Nixon was forced to resign, yet after the secret, unsanctioned land invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs failed and was made public JFK was criticized yet never held accountable.  While I will agree that zero tolerance is never a wise approach to finding justice, I question who is qualified to set these standards?

It is all too often decided by the public which behaviors are unacceptable, and which can be dismissed.  This is increasingly becoming an issue with the rise of internet and other communication technologies which have made instantaneous news a reality worldwide.  “The technology of nonstop news and the Internet means that allegations that would have been carefully checked out a generation ago no longer are,” said James Fallows, editor of U.S. News and World Report. “We now have a 24-hour-a-day news cycle. News gets used up very quickly and there’s a constant hunger for new tidbits.” (9.1)

The world took notice of the power and reality of this phenomenon in January 1998, when one man was able to launch one of the most shocking political scandals the country had ever seen.  Matt Judge had caught wind of a story the Newsweek had decided to pull, and published it on his public gossip site.  It was here that the world learned the President of the United States was having an affair with a 23 year old intern, within days this story was headlining every major publication and a media storm ensued.

While major media platforms broke the Spitzer story, it was information instantaneously available to the world and he and his alleged suitor were cast into the spotlight and publicly convicted.  Before the ink could dry, Spitzer was forced to resign, something Clinton was not forced into despite using the Oval office for sexual encounters and lying to prosecutors at an impeachment hearing and to the American public.

You could argue that Clinton did not break any laws with his affair, while Spitzer had paid for a prostitute which is punishable by law.  However, in 2004, NJ Senator McGreevey was forced to resign after found to have extramarital relations with another man.  The only difference in the Clinton and McGreevey affairs is that the latter involved homosexuality.  Was this ground to make infidelity a more punishable crime?

Clinton may have gotten off easier due to the fact that he was so well liked, maintaining popularity to date.  In his remaining years critics quieted and Clinton was a very successful leader.  However, had he been pushed out of office immediately following scandal, we would never had seen this.

While this essay may have presented more questions than it answered, it was designed as a think piece.  Think of who we want in power, think of why we want them there, and realize that they are human.  Attempt to look inward before reacting harshly a rumors or news breaks.  Handling a situation calmly will give all sides the opportunity to study the facts and weigh all options – and finish with a sound decision.

   

Connections:

 Source 6.6 Cuban Missile Crisis

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/audio.htm

Source 7.1 Nixon Watergate Tapes

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/watergate.html

Source 9.1 Clinton-Lewinski Scandal/Internet Age Journalism

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/30/pandora.web/

New Sources:

1. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jlgarner/classweb/worldpolitics/overview.html
2. http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org/

“Rescue Tests the Fed’s Credibility” – J. Bill

“Rescue Tests the Fed’s Credibility”
“Far more than at any time before, the federal Reserve is putting its vast resources and its reputation on the line tor rescue Wall Street’s biggest institutions from their far-reaching mistakes.”

Core Issues:

This article appeared on the NY Times website on March 18, 2008, in response to the Federal Reserve’s actions to bail out Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns has been a powerful investment bank on Wall Street for a greater part of the last century, but was hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis that began this summer. Beginning last Tuesday, the market began to turn on the bank and their stock price plummeted. The Federal Reserve, along with JP Morgan-Chase made a deal with Bear Sterns to purchase Bear Sterns at $2.00 a share. This action was a bold and unusual step for the Federal Reserve to take. The Fed, as the Federal Reserve is often referred to, usually only lends to banks and does not like to be seen giving assistance to financial institutions that made poor investment decisions. However, over the next few weeks, the Fed will institute several different kinds of aid to ensure the liquidity of these institutions and to help keep peoples’ confidence in the financial market up.  

The subprime mortgage meltdown that occurred this summer and the current implications of the credit crisis on Wall Street is the major underlying theme of this article. Additional themes of this article have to do with the American dream of owning your own home and government and political involvement in ensuring the health of the American financial markets. These main issues can be traced back to the earliest part of the 20^th century and illustrate how one event can impact several of the dynamic themes that make the United States the nation that it is.  

Historical Context:                                                                                                                                                                                   The Federal Reserve:

As the title of this article suggests, the Federal Reserve will play a huge role in the current credit crisis that is facing our economy. In order to understand the Federal Reserve’s role, one needs to understand the foundation of the Federal Reserve and its purpose. The Federal Reserve was established by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Throughout American history, monetary policy and the banking system have undergone some radical changes.  The first two centuries of American history saw the rise and fall of two national banks, an era of state-chartered and “free banks” who issued their own currencies, and financial panics from 1873 to 1907, culminating in a stock market crash in 1907. After this collapse, it was apparent that there was need for banking reform.  In 1912, when Woodrow Wilson was elected President, he solicited assistance from Representative Carter Glass and H. Parker Willis to advise him and crate a central bank proposal to present to Congress. After much debate and modifications to the original proposal, Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 (History of the Federal Reserve System). 

Title 12 of the US Code contains all laws relating to banks and banking. The Federal Reserve Act is the third chapter in this title. It has seventeen subchapters and defines and gives power to the Federal Reserve System. Subsection 225a of the act explains the purpose and duties of the Federal Reserve System. The act basically states that the Federal Reserve has the duty to make sure that the monetary and credit markets are stable enough to promote long run growth in economic production, which will in turn promote high employment rates, stable prices, and moderate interest rates. The rest of the act outlines the methods used to achieve such goals and the structure and authorities of the Federal Reserve System.           

The Federal Reserve Act did establish the Fed; however, it is also important to note that the Federal Reserve is not run by the government. It is what many people refer to as a quasi-government agency. However, the act allows us to see the interest that the government has in the economy. The American economy is built on the principles of free trade and private ownership. A strong economy is essential to the strength of our nation and this is of the utmost importance to our political leaders. When they perceive that there is a problem with the economy or the stability of our economy, they will not hesitate to act. President Wilson’s involvement in establishing a central bank to stabilize the banking industry indicates just how important this is and demonstrates the undeniable connection between the economy and public policy.                

Throughout history, the Fed has had trouble fully achieving these goals; however, as the institution has grown, it has been better able to respond to financial crisis. The article in the NY Times explains some possible actions the Federal Reserve may take to help ensure that the economy does not fall into a deep recession. The Fed has come to the conclusion that they must interfere and assist Wall Street Investment banks in order to ensure that the monetary and credit markets remain stable enough to promote healthy economic growth.

The Stock Market Crash of 1929, Bank Runs, and the Great Depression:

Another obvious theme in this article has to do with financial crisis. The 20^th century was filled with financial crises. The most well know and infamous being the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression which stemmed from it. The crash brought an abrupt halt the prosperous era of the “roaring twenties.” During the 1920s, the economy was growing at unprecedented rates and people were making huge investments in stocks. Investors were “buying on margin”, which means that they were borrowing part of the funds used to initially pay for the stock from banks. This characteristic of investment practices during the 1920s contributed in a large part to the severe and devastating effects of the stock market crash.

As the stock market bubble crashed, people panicked and sold their stocks for whatever they could get. After the crash, banks began to try to collect on the loans they had made to investors. Many investors did not have the funds to repay their loans and the stocks that they owned were worth far less than the loans that were used to purchase them. While making loans with depositors’ money is still common practices, financial institutions during this era also invested depositor money directly into the stock market. As word spread that banks were carrying worthless investments and not collecting on loans, people began to panic. A series of bank runs ensued. Banks never carry enough money to give all depositors their entire account at one time (The First Measure Century: Stock Market Crash). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has a collection of photographs depicting the bank runs that occurred after the stock market crash of 1929. These photograph show mobs of people waiting to get into their banks. As people began to panic they went to withdraw their money, banks did not have it on hand and the Federal Reserve could not come up with the money, and by March 1933, the United States banking system has ceased to exist. The mob scenes vividly depict the panic that had spread throughout the United States.

The historical context of a stock market crash and an ensuing bank run are extremely important to understanding the current state of the economy and the Federal Reserve’s actions; when the subprime mortgage crisis hit, there was a bank run in London. The Federal Reserve is being very careful to make sure that there is enough liquidity in the market place to ease people’s fears that they will not be able to get their money. A bank run is extremely psychological, and could easily cause the collapse of a financial institution or the entire financial markets. 

Following these events, the government enacted the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This legislation connects the actions of the economy with the reaction of the government and political environment in the United States. The Securities Exchange Act established the Securities and Exchange Commission and gave them authority to regulate all aspects of the securities industry. In addition it identifies certain behavior that is prohibited and gives the SEC power to discipline organizations who do not follow regulations (How the SEC Protects Investors). The legislation contains subchapters outlining all aspects of security investor protection, two of which have to do with margin requirements and restrictions on borrowing and lending. In explaining the necessity for the regulation, the act states “transactions in securities as commonly conducted up securities exchanges…are affected with a nation public interest which makes it necessary to provide for regulation and control…” This line highlights in plain English the inevitable tie between the economy and the government of the United States. Any event that threatens the public good, whether it occurs in science, society or the economy, will be addressed by the federal government.     

Additionally, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act established the FDIC as insurers of the deposits of all member banks. It became part of the Federal Reserve Code and ensures a person’s deposits up to $100,000. The government saw the need to protect the public from the mass hysteria that followed the stock market crash and to ensure that even if a financial institution acts fraudulently the general public will not lose their savings. Again, this legislation shows the important link between the economy and the actions of government officials.  

Home Ownership:

 A final issue in the article has to do with the subprime mortgage crash that triggered the downturn that is currently present in the market. The major underlying factor of the crash was people defaulting on their mortgage payments. Owning your own home is one of the cornerstones of our cultural identity. It is part of the American dream that so many people strive to make a reality. The photograph at the top of the article with protestors holding signs reading, “Don’t Foreclose on the America Dream!” is a strong indication of the strength of this aspect of our society. The article “Up from the Potato Fields” is an important example of how this dream and the American economy are unavoidably tied together, and have been for much of the 20^th century.
 

The article focuses on the mass production of houses that took place during the 1950s that made homeownership a reality for people who might otherwise not have been able to afford a home. While most of the article focuses on the business behind mass producing homes, there are a few pages that focus on the opportunities affordable housing provided the average American. On page three of the article, the columnist says “the countless new housing projects…are changing the way of life of millions of U.S. citizens, who are realizing for the first time the great American dream of owning their own home.” Later on in the article there is a quote from an ex-soldier that reads, “Getting into this house was like being emancipated.” As this article indicates, the idea of owning a home is one of the unique aspects of American culture that gives us our identity.

It is this powerful force of achieving the American dream that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis. There was a housing boom that followed the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which made real estate prices soar. Many people could not afford the homes and banks began offering loans to these people with adjustable rates. However, as time went on, these rates went up, the housing market collapsed, and people began to default. Financial institutions were left with people who could not pay back their loans and with property that cost much less than the investment they made in it. However, without understanding the American dream of owning a home, it is impossible to understand people who would borrow from a bank to finance a home that they can barely afford, or why a bank would search for ways to make such a loan.

Key Themes:          

The key themes that have been seen thought history and that are highlighted in this article have to do with the relationship between America’s unique culture, the state of the economy, and public policy. The American dream of owning a home can be traced back to the beginning of the 20^th century. However, it is not until the economy could mass produce houses at an affordable price that the average American could easily realize this dream. The tie between economy and technology and achieving this goal is unmistakable. Also, the idea that the federal government is responsible for enacting policy that protects the public good, and the impact events in the economy have on the livelihood of our nation is intertwined. The establishment of the Federal Reserve, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the FDIC are prime examples of how the federal government has enacted legislation in response to a crisis in the financial markets on the basis of protecting the good of the American public.     

 Sources:
Fed 101
The Federal Reserve Act
The First Measured Century
Bank Run 

The Securites Exchange Act
The Federal Deposit Insurance Act
Up From the Potato Fields

“Court decision on gun control is personal for 2 women”-Allison Parker

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/index.html
Headline: “Court decision on gun control is personal for 2 women”
Lede: Shelly Parker wants to know why she cannot keep a handgun in her house. As a single woman she has been threatened by neighborhood drug dealers in a city where violent crime rates are on the rise.
Summary of Core Issues
On Tuesday the Supreme Court will consider Washington’s ban on personal ownership of handguns. They will review whether or not these bans violate the Second Amendment. The article presents two individuals on either side of the gun control argument, both with very different opinions. The debate on the right to bear arms is one that has gone on for decades. The core issues at hand is whether citizen’s have the right to personal ownership of handguns, which is a question that has been reviewed throughout the 1900s.
Historical Context
The Second Amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (U.S. Constitution) Like other amendments, there have been many court cases which sought to determine exactly what these words mean. Does this express the right of the U.S. to uphold strong armed forces, or the right of the individual to protection through weaponry?
There have been three major court cases throughout the 1900s dealing with the personal ownership of handguns. The first, United States v. Miller, took place in 1939. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were in possession of a shotgun whose barrel had been sawed off. They were suspected moonshiners, and after searching their truck, the Department of the Treasury arrested them for not paying taxes on the gun and for transporting it across state lines.
The Supreme Court heard their case under the belief that the National Firearms Act conflicted with the Second Amendment. The National Firearms Act is a federal law passed in 1934 after the repeal of Prohibition. It placed a tax on the transfer of firearms. Because the tax was so high, the Act was really meant to limit the spread of these firearms. It also put regulations on purchasing and registering them, which prevented anyone from owning a firearm and set the tone for current regulations. (The National Firearms Act)
The NFA set into place strict regulations still used today. For example, it stated that in order to be a private owner of a firearm, you must obtain permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in addition to a signature from the sheriff or chief of police. An individual must also undergo a background check and submit a photograph and fingerprints.
Another case dealing with the ownership of handguns was Quilici v. Morton Grove in 1982. Morton Grove, Illinois put a ban on handguns. The Illinois constitution, re-written in 1970, had added the right to bear arms. When this ban took hold, two groups sought out to fight it. The National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) planned a lawsuit, but Victor D. Quilici beat them to it. Rather than using the Illinois constitution as his basis, he argued using the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. This caused the case to go to federal court, where the judge ruled that the ban was not unconstitutional. Although they ruled that the Amendments had no basis in the hearing, they ruled to uphold the ban.
This case surfaced a major problem with the right to bear arms, which was state v. federal regulation of firearms. It is the responsibility of both state and federal courts to uphold the amendments, but cases dealing with the right to bear arms always included conflicts in interpretation.
The NRA and the SAF are two groups who have been fighting for firearm ownership rights throughout the 1900s. The NRA promotes gun ownership on the basis of it being a national liberty. They preach self-defense and sportsmanship as reasons for gun ownership. Because of influence from the NFA, they support safe use and registration of firearms. Historically, the group has had major influence. They formed in 1871, lead by Union Army officers. They gained steam in 1934 and had a big role in WWII, reloading ammunition used to protect weapon-manufacturing factories and also by providing somewhere around 7,000 firearms to Britain for their defense. They now actively fight against any bans on ownership, and monitor elections based on parties’ platform on gun control. They do, however, support limiting criminal’s access to guns. In support of the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation was formed in 1974 and is an organization based around education and legal defense of the Second Amendment.

In 2007, Parker v. District of Columbia explored another ban on handguns, this time in D.C. In 1975 and 1976, laws were put into place which prohibited personal ownership on handguns, and also the use of guns as self defense in the event of home invasion. Despite claims that these laws were meant to reduce violence, during the 15 years these laws were in place, the murder rate rose 200. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that this ban violated the Second Amendment, stating “the most important word is the one the drafters chose to describe the holders of the right” “the people.” That term is found in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. It has never been doubted that these provisions were designed to protect the interests of individuals against government intrusion, interference, or usurpation.” The court said, therefore, that by stating “the people”, the Second Amendment explicitly expressed the right of the individual.
The battle on the District of Columbia’s bans, however, continued on to the Supreme Court because of the focus around the Second Amendment. The different opinions of the two women in the article bring to light the cultural context of this ongoing battle.
The NFA was created after Prohibition had been lifted. The Prohibition (Issue) banned the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcohol. During this time, underground speakeasies and illegal moonshiners flourished. It became a time of organized crime and gangsters. Images such as this (gangters) bring to mind the Prohibition Era. It was fitting, therefore, that once reform took place on the way the U.S. dealt with Prohibition, they must deal with crime and firearms as well.
Since then, it has been the concern of Americans to protect themselves. Some see it more important to own weapons for self-defense, others wish to keep firearms out of the hands of men who could create great danger with them. Some Americans track the use of guns for self-defense in order to highlight their importance. (Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog). Others, primarily those who have experienced gun violence first-hand, such as Elilta “Lily” Habt from the article, who was present during the Virginia Tech shooting, advocate keeping firearms out of the hands of those who may abuse them. Historically, many have learned that this could be almost anyone. Therefore, a conflict remains between the right to bear arms, Americans’ liberty to reasonable protection, and exactly what the Second Amendment means.
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog. 2003. <http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html>.

Code, Internal Revenue. The National Firearms Act. 1934. <http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm>.

gangters. 1920. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120/empire/gangsters/wiess.jpg>.

Issue, The American. U.S. is Voted Dry. 1919. <http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/Newpaper%20Announces%20Prohibition.gif>.

U.S. Constitution, Find Law. Second Amendment. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/>.

<!–[if supportFields]><![endif]–>

“Spitzer resigns in disgrace over scandal”

News Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080312/ap_on_re_us/spitzer_prostitution

Headline: “Spitzer resigns in disgrace over scandal”

Lede: “In a startlingly swift fall from grace, Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned Wednesday after getting caught in a call-girl scandal that made a mockery of his straight-arrow image and left him facing the prospect of criminal charges and perhaps disbarment.”

 

Political sex scandals have engulfed the news for several decades. When New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced his resignation on March 12, 2008, two days after being linked to a prostitution ring, he joined a list of politicians whose careers have been destroyed because of sex Eliot Spitzer was one of many politicians who risked their careers for sexual pleasure. Spitzer, now former Governor of New York, is married with three children, but that did not stop him from spending thousands on prostitutes. He was caught during a phone tap arranging a meeting with a hooker named Kristen for $1000 an hour. The authorities have since discovered that he has spent over $80,000 on the prostitution ring. (http://politickernj.com/files/Top53SexScandals.pdf).  Mr. Spitzer was threatened with impeachment and, as a result, took matters into his own hands and resigned. The main issues at hand are prostitution, infidelity, and  possible impeachment and how they are so prominent in the history of politics.

The public seems to be attracted to the details of extramarital affairs, especially when it concerns political leaders. While much of the public also engages in such activities, the politicians have held the spotlight. This possibly is because the politicians are seen as leaders and when leaders mess up, it is exciting. The simple fact that the politicians are the ones messing up, keeps the public enticed with this type of voyeurism. Throughout history, we seen many politicians’ careers ruined because of their scandalous, sexual relationships. Many of these politicians have resigned and/or been impeached.

Eliot Spitzer’s case has been given a lot of attention because of its immense controversy. As Attorney General in New York, Spitzer promised to end corruption. He fought many cases against corruption and swore to the people of New York that he would do whatever he could to end this problem. As a result, he was elected to be Governor of New York in November of 2006. Consequently, he is now seen as being involved in a majorly corrupt legal battle. He himself, signed a law against human-trafficking to try to end prostitution.  He changed the punishment for prostitution from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class A misdemeanor, which increased fines and jail time. According to the New York state law that he signed, patronizing a prostitute and promoting prostitution and sex trafficking are a Class B misdemeanor and Class B felony, respectively. (http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/newyork.htm). Before 1915, prostitution was illegal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in most states in 1915 because of the influence of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. WCTU was founded in the 1870’s and has since been an active feminist group advocating things such as alcohol, prostitution, labor rights, pornography and peace. With the help of the WCTU in 1915, prostitution was made illegal in most states. However, prostitution was not made illegal in Alaska until 1953, and is still legal in most of Nevada (http://www.wctu.org/issues.html).

Perhaps one of the more popular contemporary sex scandals in America is the Jim McGreevey scandal. What makes this scandal especially unique is that it is one of the only homosexual political sex scandals. Jim McGreevey, former governor of New Jersey, admitted to his constituency and the world that he is a gay American in 2004. Golan Cipel, McGreevey’s state homeland security adviser and lover, became the center of attention shortly after being assigned to his post. Cipel, being an Israeli national, fell into the public eye shortly after being appointed to the $100,000 position. The problem was Cipel could not get security clearance due to his foreign citizenship. Shortly thereafter, Cipel was reassigned to an “advisory” position, oddly enough at the same salary level. Reports state that McGreevey and Cipel became very close and were often seen travelling together. In 2004, McGreevey broke the news that he had been in an intimate relationship with Cipel and asked for the forgiveness of his wife.

Shortly after the scandal broke, the couple appeared separately on the Oprah Winfrey show. Oprah also received a statement from Cipel. In his statement, Cipel maintains that rather than being engaged in a consensual relationship with McGreevey, he was “sexually assaulted and harassed” (http://www2.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200705/tows_past_20070501_b.jhtml). He claims that he is a victim rather than a perpetrator. On his website, cipelgolan.com, he maintains that the relationship was forced upon him. In my humble opinion, it seems rather odd that he would stay on at his well-paid post given that he was being “victimized” by his boss. Even more strange, Cipel, an ex Israeli Naval Officer, did not fight back while being “victimized” on more than one occasion. There is no doubt that he would have known how to do so. Perhaps he was overcome with the fear of how McGreevey would respond.

Recently, the McGreevey scandal has made it back to the media but this time the focus is on Dina, Jim’s soon to be ex-wife. From the beginning, Dina maintained that she had no idea that Jim was engaging in the affair much less that the affair was a homosexual one. In fact, she told Oprah that she did not know that he was gay until two hours before the press conference. Now, McGreevey’s former driver has admitted to being involved in a relationship with both of them for quite some time. A report in the Daily News states that the 3 of them engaged in “sex parties” which they called “Friday Night Specials” before and after Dina and Jim were married. (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/03/16/2008-03-16_former_driver_talks_mcgreevey_sex_partie.html). This comes as a sharp contrast to the statements that Dina has made since the break of the scandal.

Bill Clinton is another major political figure that was at the heart of sex scandal. The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal is possibly the most prominent sex scandal of the 20^th century. In ’98, news of the scandal broke out on the internet on the Drudge Report website. Shortly after the break to the media, Clinton made his now infamous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” speech (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=related). Shortly after the story broke, Clinton was under investigation and subsequently impeached by the House of Representatives. Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern at the time, at first declined to discuss the affair or to testify in open court. After being promised immunity, she admitted to the affair and submitted into evidence a dress that was stained with President Clinton’s semen. Shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton maintained that he did have sexual relations with Monica, claiming that his receiving oral sex did not constitute sexual relations based on the definition provided (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lJ1Z9Yw-VUg&feature=related). He was then held in contempt, had his license to practice law revoked, and fined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal). According to the law, a President can only be removed from office if a two-thirds vote is passed. In the Clinton case, the perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for impeachment and 55 votes against. The charge of obstruction of justice was defeated with 50 votes for and 50 against. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton). At the federal level, Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution states that “The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and the Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h231.html).  The House of Representatives makes all impeachment decisions while the Senate takes the proceedings to court. If convicted by the Senate, the impeached official is removed.

The issue of trust is always at the forefront of any politician’s career. It is because of this that many politicians in the wake of a scandal, namely sexual ones, choose to resign from their post. Granted, Clinton did not abdicate his throne, but maybe that is because he was found not guilty on charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. McGreevey, though not found in violation of the law, did resign from his post. Why is this? Perhaps it is because without the trust of his family, he cannot expect to retain the trust of the people he swore to serve. Some might argue that one’s personal life should have no bearing on how he or she is able to handle political responsibility. However, if a man is willing to lie to his wife what makes us think he is will be up-front with us? McGreevey used tax payer’s dollars to pay the salary of his pseudo-boyfriend. He may have done it legally, but, it doesn’t change the fact that he used his position of power to further his own ambition. Eliot Spitzer falls under the same category. Officially, he hasn’t been charged with a crime yet; however, he has still decided to resign from office. This stems from the now lost trust between him and his constituency. Scandal is at the heart of politics. Unfortunately, until we are able to separate the greedy urges from the realm of public service, this plague will continue to wreak havoc in the world of politics. With power comes an inevitable lust for greed. Although the sex scandals we read about are not much different than some of the marital problems we hear about in passing, it bears significance when trust is lost between self-proclaimed “civil servants” and the general public.

“Principal Sees Injustice, and Picks a Fight With It” – k.bradley final.

Article: “Principle Sees Injustice, and Picks a Fight With It”written by Samuel G. Freedman of The New York Times.

ARTICLE 

Lede: “PHOENIX — One morning last August, Yvonne Watterson, the principal of GateWay Early College High School here, sat in her office, grimly scrolling through the database of its 240 students.”

Summary of Core Issues: Principal Yvonne Watterson of GateWay Early College High School in Phoenix, Arizona takes action to help keep probable illegal immigrant students in school. Students at the school take college courses at the community college that is in the same building which sets the school apart from others, and classes are paid for with in-state tuition. Despite their intelligence and motivation to continue their education, each credited course costs nearly $300 and many cannot afford it. In November of 2006, Arizona voters passed a statue known as Proposition 300. This statue says that illegal immigrants are not eligible for any financial help at public colleges and universities. Although these kids are high school students this still applies to them because of the credit towards college that they receive after completion of the course. Ms. Watterson is looking past the obvious deterrents in a fight to keep the students in school and raise money for them to continue their development of a higher education.

            An issue in America that has always been met with controversy and moral uncertainty is immigration. The “melting pot”is what our nation has been called for a long time due to the mix of nationalities and cultures from around the world. It is a unique asset to our country to have such diversity. Today, as in the past, we are still facing immigration issues. The difference today from the past is the group or nationality it is pertaining to the most. Today Mexican and Latin American illegal immigrants are widespread across the country. These are the people thought of when it comes to illegal or even legal immigration in the United States presently. During times of war, especially WWII era, there were many laws and mandates against the immigration of Asians. These Acts taken from the University of Massachusetts site are just two examples of the bias actions taken on foreign citizens. (UMASS)

Act of 1917: Exclusion of Asian Indians (1917) -”A geographical criterion was used to exclude Asian Indians, because their racial or ethnic status was unclear”

Immigrant Act of 1924: Exclusion of Japanese -“The Immigration Act of 1924 barred entry of ‘aliens ineligible to citizenship’; because Japanese and other Asians were barred by the 1790 naturalization law stipulating that ‘whites only’ could be naturalized as citizens, the 1924 act totally excluded them from immigration” (Lowe 180-814).

There obviously has been revisions or abolishment to these acts since they were put into society, but now there is a focus on the Mexican and Latin American population. Not all Mexicans in the United States are illegal but there is such a large number who are that political heads are very unsettled because of. The newest Immigration legislature was passed in 1990. The Immigration Act (1990) states that   “As the Immigrant Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990 attest, however, immigration legislation continues to be the site for the resurgence of contradiction between capital and the state, between economic and political imperatives, between the push-pull of markets and the maintenance of civil rights and is riddled with conflicts as the state attempts to control through law what is also an economically driven phenomenon. In the 1990s, recent immigration policies and de facto immigration policies express this contradiction around the crisis of illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Latin America (though Haitian and Chinese examples have also emerged)” (Lowe 20). (UMASS) This Act is the first to address the “economic phenomenon” that is illegal immigrants working for such a low wage at long hours.

            Released very recently was a news story by MSNBC.com pertaining to a virtual fence that is in the works to be set up along the Mexico-US border. In “‘Virtual fence’ along border to be delayed” (Lecture 2/HistImprov) it was said that President Bush’s proposed 28-mile virtual fence has encountered setbacks and needs to be redesigned. This project may suit some Americans but the amount of money spent on a redesign is a harsh reality of the American budget. President Bush’s attempt to expedite the process lead to the predictable flaws. It is no surprise that Bush is such an advocate for the fence, despite the more so positive economic force behind illegal immigrants.

“Since the 1950s, undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Latin America    have provided much of the low-wage labor in agriculture, construction, hotels, restaurants, and domestic services in the western and southwestern United States. The wages and working conditions of these jobs do not attract U.S. workers: state policy will not legislate the improvement of labor conditions, but neither does it declare officially that the U.S. economy systematically produces jobs that only third world workers find attractive. The result is an officially disavowed and yet unofficially mandated, clandestine movement of illegal immigration, which addresses the economy need for low-wage labor but whose dehumanization of migrant workers is politically contradictory” (Lowe 21). (UMASS)

The above statement proves strong for the immigration debate that is constantly addressed in our country. Not only is it addressed nationally, but on a state government basis as well. Like the story from the New York Times where Principal Watterson met problems after her state of Arizona passed Proposition 300 in November 2006, other states have done the same in the past and can decide to in the future. It is hard to determine what is fair and what is not when it comes to children and education. In this case specifically the “children” are actually teenagers or young adults as they are in high school but the same reasoning applies. They are students trying to learn and better themselves. It seems unfair and un-American to put a restraint on that. Principle Watterson personally recruited some of the gifted students that she then had to ban from school after it showed up they had no identification. Proposition 300 states that “college students who are not legal United States citizens or are without lawful immigration status must pay out-of-state tuition, and that persons who are not United States citizens and who are without lawful immigration status are not eligible for financial assistance using state money. The law requires that those who are not citizens or legal residents pay out-of-state tuition.” (Maricopa Community Colleges) Obviously, many of these students cannot afford to pay high college tuitions, not even by credit by credit. In 1994, California passed a proposition of the same context although in California Proposition 187 it denies all schooling and medical care to illegal immigrants. Certainly California’s is a much harsher version of Arizona’s legislative ruling. Still, Ms. Watterson is disconsolate over the ruling by Arizona voters.

            Yvonne Watterson is an immigrant herself and no stranger to discrimination. She came to the United States in the mid 1980’s from Northern Ireland. In Ireland, the Northern part is Protestant and the rest Catholic. There has been a battle raging between these two groups of people for years and Yvonne has witnessed it first hand. Every July 12 of the year the Protestants celebrate the Battle of the Boyne victory, which happened three centuries ago, with the singing of anthems, burning of tires and pictures of the Pope. It still makes her upset to this day thinking about the prejudice and hurt it caused her Catholic friends who lived so close to her back in Antrim and never did it occur to her something like it would take place in America the land of freedom and equality. “It’s that hatred. It’s that separation. Not having to look someone in the eye. It’s a horrible, cowardly — I don’t know what to call it. I wouldn’t have believed I was in America.” She said about Proposition 300. (New York Times) Ms. Watterson decided to take a stand and fight for these students since they could not do it on their own. After interviewing with a local newspaper on the issue Yvonne got mixed responses. Some disagreed with her saying the students were “law-breakers” and unworthy of an education because of it. Although she did get one response that got the wheels turning. Lawyer turned TV host Jose A. Cardenas, called Ms. Watterson and had one of her students that was talked about in her interview on his television show. After the show aired, her high school received an anonymous donation of $25,000 to go towards undocumented students tuition. Soon after the Stardust Foundation located right outside Phoenix donated an additional $50,000 to the cause. Because of Principal Watterson’s determination GateWay High School had $83,000 for student tuitions. Not only did she work hard as a teacher, and principal but as a Civil Rights Activist. She refused to let laws that hindered educational growth of children in our country continue unquestioned. Rightly so, Yvonne Watterson received the 2008 ‘Living the Dream’ award. This award “recognizes the accomplishments of Phoenix citizens…who exemplify the ideals of Dr. King through their personal commitment to human relations and social justice.”(Living the Dream)

The fight for equality continues and maybe eventually one day the war will be won. The war, like that of Brown vs. Board of Education, which forever changed the world of education is still struggling. “Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment…”. (Source 5.1) The circumstances in both cases are different but maybe some day in the future there will be a change that most can agree to when it comes to immigration in the United States and more specifically the laws of immigrants and the education system. Our countries past maybe foreshadow its future.

Like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ms. Watterson also has a dream. A dream that in America all children will be able to attend school, no matter their documentation, or nationality. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”(MLK Speech) These words will forever live on in the legacy of Dr. King from his August 28, 1963 speech. These words are what changed America in the past and will continue to change America in the future. These words are what inspired one woman from a high school in Arizona to make a change. 

“High Court Likely to Favor Gun Rights” – C. Hughes

Article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-17-scotus-handguns_N.htm 

Lede:  A Supreme Court majority appears ready to rule for the first time in the nation’s history that the Second Amendment gives people individual right to own guns. 

Core Issues: (Civil Rights) The District of Columbia is being sued after it rejected an application to keep a handgun at home for personal protection. The case is being heard in the United States Supreme Court and is the first time in nearly 70 years that the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment. Issues examined are federal legislation on guns and interpretation of the Second Amendment. 

Discussion:              

              The issue of gun control is central to those of us living in the city of Philadelphia. The murder rate is one of the highest nationally and recently has been called an epidemic. One of the answers to violence is the implementation of stricter gun laws.  While some may see tougher restrictions the answers to curbing violence others view it as an infraction on their Constitutional rights. A case is being heard in the Supreme Court which will offer to further interpret the Second Amendment and may alter gun laws across the country.

             Dick Heller sued the District of Columbia after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at home for his protection. The case is being heard in the United States Supreme Court. In 1976, the District of Columbia implemented a complete ban on handguns unless they were registered before that year to try to curb violence in the city. The law has been under attack since inception in Congress and the courts because it is argued to be an impingement on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is the first time in nearly 70 years that the Supreme Court has reviewed the Second Amendment.

             The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html).”  This 27 word sentence has yet to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. One may interpret it to say that the right to bear arms is only for that of the local militia such as the National Guard. Others may see it as the right of individuals, “people,” to protect themselves with arms.

             The first federal legislation relating to guns was the National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm). Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted this in response to the lawlessness brought about by the gangster culture during prohibition. The sensationalistic aspect of the crimes committed by criminals such as Al Capone, John Dillinger, and Bonnie and Clyde pushed the administration to do something to prevent the spread of dangerous guns such as Thompson “Tommy” Sub-Machine Gun and shot barreled shot guns. To prevent infringing on Second Amendment, they planned to tax the dangerous guns out of circulation. The new law covered, “A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun.” All gun sales were subjected to a $200 tax (comparable to about $2000 today) and buyers were required to fill out paperwork for approval by the Treasury Department. Any infringement on the law would result in a $2000 fine and up to 5 years imprisonment. Added to this was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. This law required those selling firearms through interstate and foregoing commerce to obtain a Federal Firearms License from the Secretary of Commerce. It required the recording of the name and address of the purchaser and prohibited sale to persons lacking a gun permit or those convicted of certain crimes.

              The first time that the United States Supreme Court was during 1939 in the Miller v United States (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/millervus.html). It was a lawsuit that argued that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional. Two men were charged with transferring a double barrel 12-gauge shotgun in violation of the NFA.  The indictment was rescinded by a federal district court judge and ruled that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. When the case was brought before the Supreme Court it unanimously disagreed with the district court’s decision in favor of the National Firearms Act. Justice James McReynolds dismissed the defendants case with the statement: “the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” He also said that “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” McReynolds noted that many states had adopted gun control laws.

             Further gun legislation was passed following the assassination of influential Americans. The assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 inspired major revisions to federal gun laws since he was murdered with a mail-order gun. The following assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy sped up the process of enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968. The law outlawed mail order shotguns and the sale of handguns over state lines. It also expanded the list of illegal buyers to include convicted felon, mentally incompetent, and drug users. The enforcement of the Gun Control Act was given to the Department of the Treasury’s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the IRS in 1972. The organization replaced “tax” with “firearms” becoming the ATF and doubling it in size.

             The largest proponent of retaining the right to bear arms for legal use has been the National Rifle Association. The organization was formed in 1871 and has grown to over 3 million members. A commercial released by the NRA in the 1980s encourages people to join the organization so that their Constitutional right is upheld. They state that they “preserve Americans’ rights to bear arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0SqEdyZvl4).”  The commercial is part of the campaign the organization has been running to make citizens more aware of legislation attacking Second Amendment rights. While it may seem to some that the NRA is evil and is partially responsible for continued gun violence because of their fight to keep guns legal, this is not the case. Yes, they do fight for gun rights for their legal and “positive” use.  They also are the leader of promoting gun safety and are the source for training on proper use of these weapons.  Since the early 1900’s the NRA has been training youth in safe marksmanship through schools and boy-scout clubs. Their hunting safety programs have made hunting one of the safest sports in America. During times of war they have lent their shooting ranges to the government for training and even donated 7000 arms to British troops in WWII. In 1960, it became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers in the NRA Police Firearms Instruction Certificate Program (http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx). With such deep roots and strong following the NRA is a loud voice heard in the Capitol.

             The non-profit organization began to lobby in 1975 with the formation of the Institute for Legislative Action. The ILA lobbied Congress for the protection of the Second Amendment. The organization is said to be the most powerful non-profit organization and claims to be the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organizations in the United States.

             A 1999 speech by the current NRA president, Charlton Heston, deems the fight for gun rights comparable to Martin Luther’s civil rights struggle in the 1960’s (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6033). Heston points out that we live in a society filled with spin where actions are removed from their consequences. “I believe that in your heart you already know something is profoundly wrong. When bartenders are responsible for drunk drivers’ acts, and gun makers are responsible for criminals’ acts, and nobody is responsible for O. J. Simpson’s acts, something is wrong.” He argues that the government is taking the wrong approach to curbing gun violence. While the government has proper legislation to curb illegal gun violence it is not enforcing it. He uses a case study in Richmond Virginia where a program called Project Exile was put into place. The program enforced the existing federal law that anyone caught with an illegal gun would be placed in prison for five years. Gun homicides decreased 62 percent in the first year and other crimes such as robbery, rape, and assault plummeted also.  This is type of program that needs to be implemented nationally. Rather than put a complete ban on firearms including legal use, programs need to be put into place to enforce existing law and reduce illegal guns use.

             The current case in the Supreme Court seems that it will further interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms. Key justices, including Anthony Kennedy, suggesting they believe the Second Amendment was rooted in a concern for Americans’ ability to protect themselves, rather than militia-related interests. This is different from the 1939 case which ruled in favor of the gun laws by interpreting in regards to the local militia rather than individuals. This landmark case shows the influence that Supreme Court decisions have on the rights of the people.

Justices Take Up On-Air Vulgarity Again

Headline:  Justices Take Up On-Air Vulgarity Again

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/washington/18scotus.html?ref=us

 

Lede: Washington- The issue of vulgar speech on the nation’s regulated airwaves, a flash point for decades, reached the Supreme Court again on Monday.

 

Summary of Core Issues:  The article explores the ongoing battle between the Federal Communications Commission and broadcasters.  The FCC has been given a chance to defend their stance on their decision to start punishing broadcasters more severely, but not without valid reasoning as ordered by the Supreme Court.  It also discusses the “light hand” with which the FCC had been ruling with and then switching their policy to more imposing penalties.  A case between them and Fox Network was taken to court and appealed on these grounds.

 

Historical Context: Franklin D. Roosevelt originally established The FCC in 1934 following the Federal Radio Commission as designated in the New Deal.  He sought it important to establish a government agency responsible for the authority of the airways.  http://newdeal.feri.org/timeline/1934g2.htm But the initial regulation of communication of media was in part do to ensure that there was some authority in preventing the collision of broadcast signals, by assigning broadcasters frequencies.  This was the first time that the public and broadcasters felt the FCC had infringed on their rights, since many felt that one, the airwaves were public and two, that it was a conflict with their first amendment rights.  This of course being freedom of press.  The commission’s rules and regulations are located in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/

The first time that the Federal Communications Commission had a case that made it to court was in 1974 in the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, more popularly known as the “Seven Dirty Words” case. These seven dirty words: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits became a problem when comedian George Carlin talked about them in his monologue, “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television,” on his Class Clown Album, but it was his second monologue, “Filthy Words” that dealt with the same thematic issue of getting around FCC regulation that really caused and uproar when it was broadcast by WBIA, Pacifica radio station. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFmRypAYz_E   This of course brought about the controversial case.  The FCC won first, but Pacifica appealed the decision, then the FCC appealed the Supreme Court ruling.  The major conflict here is not that Carlin said the words, but more importantly the context in which he was using them in an artistic expression; it was a performance.  This is where the FCC As a result of this, the FCC did as stated earlier, rule with a light hand, because the Supreme Court created the safe harbor provision, which refers to the time slot between 10pm and 6am during which stations can air indecent or profane material.  However, this is not to be confused with obscene language. Now, the actual difference between the two can be a bit difficult to understand. http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html What exactly deems material as indecent or obscene? The Supreme Court ruled that it must meet three criteria:  material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts, 2.  The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by law; and (3) as a whole must lack serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value. Whereas, indecent material “contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.”  Confused yet?  The Supreme Court even agreed that this is not an efficient way of making a case for their rulings.  As stated in the article, “We are sympathetic to the networks’ contention that the FCC’s indecency test is undefined, indiscernible, inconsistent and, consequently, unconstitutionally vague.”  This alone aided the network in getting the Supreme Court appeal.  Moreover, in 1987 during the Bush administration the FCC got rid of their “dirty words” test and announced that they would prohibit anything that could be considered, “patently offensive.” This apparently was in part due to pressure from the religious right.

Furthermore, something that may be of interest to Americans now in the midst of the primary presidential election is that the President is responsible for appointing the five commissioners for terms of five years.  However, no more than three of these commissioners are allowed to be in the same party.  This of course was intended to ensure in the fairness of the commission’s rulings. But nonetheless can sway some decisions in a particular direction.  The FCC now has the power to censor everything that can be viewed or heard on radio and television.  And to no surprise, they tend to reflect the stance of the political party who is in power at the time. 

With the upcoming presidential election it will be interesting to see who is appointed, and how that will affect the rulings of the FCC.  For instance, if a democrat is put into office as President perhaps there will be more leniency in their rulings, or vice versa.  Take Hillary Clinton, if she were to be elected, much of her support is from the baby boomer and older demographic.  They will probably have a different viewpoint on censorship as say, commissioners appointed by Obama.  There was no government agency that regulated the airwaves in the ladder of the twentieth century. The FCC’s role has seen numerous revisions as technology has advanced.  The most recent bill passed by the George W. Bush administration was in 1996, it is called the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 was signed, stiffening the penalties of the FCC.  The violators will be forced to pay a fine of 325,000 dollars for each violation of each station that has defied the law.  The problem is not necessarily when the FCC finds a discrepancy with the content of a program, because much of the time they do have legitimate reasoning.  However, it is more so the way they go about reprimanding the broadcaster and the threats that they have become synonymous for.  Especially when they have the backing of so many morality based advocate groups. The FCC website also makes it very clear and easy to file a complaint with them.  Which also allows for them to receive the support of individuals in addition to these groups.

  Moreover, with all of these regulations, one would assume conflictions with the first amendment’s freedom of speech clause would arise, and so many important issues on the chopping block in the election. But it is important to note that the freedom of press and speech is a conflict that bears great weight on present American life, especially in this state of war.  It is a power struggle between the government and the people of which has been a major factor. 

So, it is safe to assume that the Federal Communications Commission has a rough time with accepting artistic expression.  What exactly qualifies artistic expression if when receiving an award, one is reprimanded for commenting on their achievement.  More recently as discussed in the article, the FCC has had a problem with award shows, and the “surprise” element of being a live broadcast.  But what is really a “surprise” are the ever changing and unclear rules that the Federal Communications commission tries to enforce. They issue complaints without fully explaining prior to, the revisions that had been made.  Granted the major issue that the FCC had was that there were in fact children in the audience, “but at an award show, where the media that they are receiving the award for may not necessarily even be intended for viewing by children.  Perhaps what lay ahead in the America’s future in freedom of speech is solely reliant on the future administration of this country.  But even with position changes, until the Federal Communications Commission can come up with a solid definition of what sanctions something as “obscene” there will continue to be conflict.  

Title: On Defensive, Obama Plans Talk on Race
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18wright.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1205813699-iMz6c2x4weWrAqQeZgGBuw

Headline: Facing a major test, Barack Obama was writing a speech aides said could be one of the most crucial of his campaign.

Core Issues

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. has been making controversial statements for more than a year about race, and Senator Obama is now experiencing extreme scrutiny over the reverends characterizations of the United States as “fundamentally racist and the government as corrupt and murderous”. This is an especially tricky situation because questions arise as to why Senator Obama attached himself to Mr. Write in the first place and stuck with him for so long. Not only does Senator Obama attend Mr. Writes church, but he also named a book after one of his sermons. Senator Obama is scheduled to give a speech in Philadelphia on Tuesday where he will broaden the discussion of race. He will address racial divisions at face value and discuss the way they place out in church, in his campaign, and beyond. This speech is said to be the most important speech of his presidential candidacy.
The article continues in explaining that Mr. Wright’s statements are tricky for the Obama campaign to address. This is because the more Obama condemns his words, the more the people of America are going to question why Obama is so closely associated with Mr. Wright in the first place. In a television interview Obama called his pastor’s words ‘stupid’ and conceded, ‘it has been a distraction from the core message of our campaign’.

Historical Analysis

The issue America faces today is rooted in old divisions. Racism has always been a problem, ever since the Europeans immigrated and stole the land away from the Native Americans. Not only that, but we proceeded to kill them off by bringing new diseases here. I think this is something people tend to forget. That America does not originally belong to any of us. Indeed we have colonized, industrialized, and modernized it, but the history of this land was established around racism. I just want to clarify that I am not in any way racist, but I strongly believe that there are a few reasons we are forever frozen in a racist battle.
First, I think people forget the impact their actions have on children. What we teach our children is what they will teach their children. You cannot stop racism just by talking about it, or preaching about how horrible it is. We can look back in world history and see how many innocent people died in the Holocaust and we can look back in our own devastating history with regards to racism. We can discuss the distressful outcomes but it will not change anything. If you were raised to hate a certain type of person, then you will grow up hating that person, and teach your children to hate that person also. This video is extremely powerful and hard to swallow. It accurately illustrates how hate is learned. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZscS775ek8) This is the reason our country will never change. If hate crimes such as the September 11th attacks on America have not conveyed the message, I’m afraid nothing will.

Second, we are never going to get rid of discrimination with agencies such as the EEOC still being around. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a United States federal agency tasked with ending employment discrimination in the United States. President John F. Kennedy signed it into law. It can bring suit on behalf of alleged victims of discrimination against private employers. It also serves as an adjudicatory for claims of discrimination brought against federal agencies. (www.eeoc.gov) It is not just African American’s that are getting discriminated against. Why should there be laws regarding how many black people should be in your company or university? If there is a law regarding what percentage of African American students a university has to have, and a white student applies with better credentials but the university needs to make the quota, they will take the African American over the white student. Why should that be? There are bigger issues here than just statements that people make. We are even discriminating against leaders with enough strength and compassion to try and tackle our hopeless problem. Senator Obama is not the first powerful African American man who has tried to salvage our country. Jesse Jackson also put forth a huge effort. In 1968 he found “Operation PUSH” – People United to Save Humanity. Jackson launched programs to improve minority education, economic development, employment, criminal justice and voter registration. (http://www.4president.org/brochures/jessejackson1984brochure.htm)

Finally, I think the media is a huge catalyst for hate. The Internet, for example, although a great tool to utilize to practice your freedom of speech, given to you as a right by the First Amendment, can get out of hand. The Internet allows anyone to become a publisher, an opportunity that can be easily abused. In the United States alone, 79 million individuals use the internet, 49% of them in their homes, and another 10-15% elsewhere. (http://www.jolt.unc.edu/vol3/Burch.htm) If you compare the amount of people online to our population, the result is tremendous, especially when you consider what the majority of our population is exposed to. Our country’s children are exposed to disturbing expression of hate. This goes back to my first point about how racism is learned, and why we will never wipe out hate. Young Internet users who are particularly vulnerable to influential hate-filled ideas and values often have no regulation in cyberspace. There is also great potential for exposure of such ideas to become dangerous crimes of death and destruction, such as racial murder and rape of white women in America. (http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-racial-murder-and-rape-of-white-women-in-america_3555.html#more-3555) The threat of violence due to hate-based ideas and values has become a pressing reality especially after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Hate being expressed in cyberspace has reminded Americans that speech can spur dangerous actions in response. The First Amendment has severely restricted the government’s ability to regulate hate-speech and racism over the Internet.

It has come to the point where people say they want America to be united and to no longer have it be black and white. But I think it is simply not true. We can sit and argue this point for forever, yet America thrives on racial hate. Whether it is religious, racial, or sexual. Senator Obama is preaching unity and reconciliation, but America is simply not ready to come together as a united country. Until we pull together as a unit, change is not going to come and history will continue to repeat itself like a broken record.

Senator Obama is never going to be able to escape these racial issues, this scrutiny is not going to end even if he becomes president. People are still going to talk, and they are going to watch him like a hawk and listen just as closely. And because we are what we are, people are going to twist his words, and read way too far into what he says. One little word that can be taken the wrong way will. Americans need to stop constantly putting him in the spot light using negative racial issues, and start really considering what he is preaching. We need to realize that there is a huge problem in America that needs to be addressed head-on.

History 203 Final – C.W.

Here is the article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/17/scotus.guns/index.html

 Article: “Court Decision on Gun Control is Personal for 2 Women” (3/18/2008) 

Lede: “Shelly Parker wants to know why she cannot keep a handgun in her house. As a single woman she has been threatened by neighborhood drug dealers in a city where violent crime rates are on the rise.”

Summary of Article

As a woman in the nation’s capital questions why she is not able to have a gun in her own household to protect her from the rising crime in the area, she is left with the only answer that Washington D.C. does not allow its residents to possess ownership of handguns in households.  The true question at stake, however, is whether or not D.C. prohibiting handguns violates individual rights.  The argument rests in the wording of the Second Amendment; is the right to bear arms a collective or individual right?

            The other side to this story is the concern with how easy it is to have the possession of a gun.  Another woman in the article is a victim of the shooting at Virginia Tech, and her argument is not about owning a gun, but rather tightening the restrictions on gun control (in other words, not getting a gun by just the click of a button on the internet).  As a result, the question (is this an individual right or a collective right to bear arms?) is being decided under the Supreme Court.  This case of civil rights of can possibly bring those states and cities in support of the District of Columbia into questioning their own laws about weapon control.  There are, however, 31 states that support gun ownership.  The different opinions in this article that are discussed are essential, but the core issue is civil rights.  The Supreme Court is said to make its decision in June.

Historical Analysis

             One of the first steps in discouraging the possessions of guns was in 1934.  The National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://www.gunlawnews.org/NFA-34.html) was passed to impose a tax on the purchasing of guns without prohibition.  The act defines a set of devices (machine guns, silencers, etc.) that must have a federal registration and tax.  With proper paper work in the registration process, purchases were licensed and recorded.  Another aspect to protect gun control came four years known as the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (http://www.gunlawnews.org/FFA-38.html) .  This act further added restrictions to the law passed in 1934 in order to place more qualifications of owning a handgun.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal was the pillar of strength behind these two acts; at the time of the Great Depression, there was fear in the public eye of gangsters and thugs.  Take for example the scene of The Godfather when Sonny is killed at a toll booth (http://youtube.com/watch?v=1xSTG6bHjGA).  This scene captures the epitome of gangster life as it shows violence and power as its prime source. The American people were already in fear because of the Great Depression, but crime was also to be feared; President Roosevelt, however, took a stand against the violence and backed the federal acts that were passed to suppress gun ownership.

            The Supreme Court has dealt with over thirty-five cases on gun control.  One of the most famous in this topic is a Supreme Court case in 1939 (US v Miller, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt) deals with a repeal by the government on a case where two men violated the National Firearms Act.  The two men, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, brought an unregistered, sawed off shotgun across a state border, violating the NFA law.  However, this was a case that forced the Supreme Court to revisit the Second Amendment and its wording, defining the meaning of militia.   In time that the Bill of Rights was written, militia was clearly defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” according to the case.

            Thirty-four years later in 1968, another act was passed known as the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm).  Interestingly enough, it was passed in direct connection with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Although the assassination occurred in 1963, this law was passed to keep the streets safe, since it was also known as the “Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968.”  As Franklin E. Zimring, a law professor at Berkley wrote in 1975, this act was passed to “”provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.”   This act truly made an impact on society.  According to a table of Handguns Imports by Year from 1965-1973 provided by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division, the total handgun imports in 1968 was 1,155,368 in comparison to the 349, 252 the following year.  Furthermore, in 1986, there was an act to protect those who did own a gun, and this was act was called the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (http://www.gunlawnews.org/FOPA-86.html).  This act was good news to those who did own gun, mainly for the reasons that it protected them from government intervention in sales and transporting guns; also, ammunition records were stop being recorded because of this act, as well as allowing the government to stop getting a running list of owners who had purchased guns.  The restrictions on this law, however, doubles the penalties if a person a caught using an illegal device (i.e. machine or silencer) and further restricts the selling of any gun to a prohibited person.   Obviously, most of this act silenced the effectiveness of the two previous acts made in the 1930s.  It gave more freedom to the owners of guns and to those who were looking to purchase one.

            However, when looking at the history of United States’ crimes rate over the 20^th century (http://eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/miron.prohibition.alcohol.figure3.jpg), it is quite noticeable to see that in periods such at the 1930s peaked as nearly as today’s society.  Then, there is a great decrease from the 1940s just until about the start of the 1970s.  The question to ask then is just how much is gun control related to crime?  The American Civil Liberties Union, founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, devotes all of its energy to protecting the civil liberties of the people.  Though when gun control is the topic was discussed in 2002, the ACLU said, “We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today’s world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic…” (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html).  Although this may be true, one aspect to note about the homicide chart is that it does not specifically state how the homicides were committed, or in other words what weapons were used if any.   Another interesting point to make is an observation that when the laws were made (1934, 1938, 1968, and 1986) that specifically dealt with gun laws, crime rates was at their highest. 

            Washington D.C. has banned handguns for 32 years.  In 1976, the state (Washington D.C. is considered to be its own state), put a virtual banned on handguns.  Surprisingly, crime rates rose; today, it is still 32% above its crime rate in 1976 (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8717).  However, since 1939 in the Supreme Court case of US v Miller, the United States will be revisiting the Second Amendment for the second time to define its wording, the question on whether it is an individual right or a collective right for states to arm their militias.  Since the New Deal tried to reshape the United States back in the 1930s, there have been several laws over the course of the twentieth century that in some way relate to gun control/gun ownership.  There have also been thirty-five Supreme Court cases that dealt with gun issues, but only one case revisited the Second Amendment until this upcoming case. 

            Gun control laws have been scientifically proven to not be effective.  While Shelly Parker is right in the article for stating the crime is rising in the area, Elilta Habtu – a victim of the Virginia Tech shooting – may have a more difficult time in trying to tighten up the laws for guns.  As of now, the Second Amendment is considered a collective, not individual, right.  And if Washington D.C. does choose to change its jurisdiction, many other states that follow the model of the District of Columbia may be changing theirs as well.  The history of guns in America has seemed to be a continuous, fluctuating case that is now possibly changing the history of America. 

            Check back in June to see how the Supreme Court rules.