For Discussion: America: Home of the Free, Land of the Brazen?

Genocide, forced sterilization, human medical experiments, repression of free speech, repression of freedom of religion, repression of the press, racism, forced labor, invasion of neutrals, imperialism, concentration camps, military atrocities...a list evils from the Nazi regime? In fact, the United States has been guilty of or accused of being guilty of all of the aforementioned acts. So how can we pledge allegiance to a flag that represents such a poor record in the world? Isn't that much like saying our bedtime prayers to Darth Vader?

Is the United States no better than any other country? Is the United States actually a force for great evil in the world? If so, how can we change from our wicked ways?

--Cicerone

For Discussion: A Jury of Your Peers

Most Americans dread the appearance of a jury summons in their mailbox. Many will do all they can to avoid serving on a jury. A large number refuse to show up. Can a jury of unwilling participants, randomly selected and not clever enough to escape jury duty ever really render an impartial and fair verdict?

Considering the movie 12 Angry Men and your own experience, is the jury system fair? What would make it more fair? Would you rather have a judge (a bench trial) or a jury (a jury trial) decide a case that you were involved in?

--Cicerone

Obama: Wright or Wrong?

A More Perfect Union Speech

Trinity United Church of Christ
http://www.tucc.org/home.htm

Clinton Comeback and Takes Three of Four

Ohio Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 54%
Obama 44%

McCain 60%
Huckabee 31%
Paul 5%

Texas Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 51%
Obama 48%

McCain 51%
Huckabee 38%
Paul 5%

Rhode Island Results (from CNN.com)
Clinton 58%
Obama 40%

McCain 65%
Huckabee 22%
Paul 7%

Vermont Results (from CNN.com)
Obama 60%
Clinton 38%

McCain 72%
Huckabee 14%
Paul 7%

Fallout:
Huckabee drops out; Clinton still trailing in delegates.
Also:
Did the Clinton campaign "darken" Obama's image in a campaign ad? Click here.

--Cicerone

For Discussion: Free Speech? UPDATED

Does a student at a public university have the right to free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment? Are public universities supposed to be havens for free discourse and open discussions?

Over the past few decades public universities have been writing speech, harassment, and conduct codes that some believe have infringed upon students' rights of free expression. One organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has been fighting legal battles on behalf of students and professors who have run up against these policies. They have had a surprising run of success as courts or public opinion have generally backed FIRE's arguments.

Your assignment: go to and explore FIRE's website here. On the right margin is a "Find your school" map. Find one of the colleges that you applied to and read FIRE's entry about that college.

In your comment report on the school you looked at and what you found out. Is FIRE on to something or are they exaggerating a minor issue? If someone has already done your school then pick another one.

--Cicerone

UPDATE: In case you might think that FIRE is merely a right-wing special interest group trying to stir up trouble, according to this article the current president of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, is a "a self-described 'pro-choice liberal'."

For Discussion: Keep Your Tired, Your Poor, and Your Huddled Masses!

Caption: School children, half of Polish and half of Italian descent, at a festival in May 1942, Southington, Conn.
Photo Source: Library of Congress at Flickr

The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--Emma Lazarus

Our last discussion concerned abortion and the death penalty. With the exception of Romney's flip-flop on abortion and Guiliani's pro-choice stance, neither of these issues have been major ones in the current primary races.

Six months ago, most pundits would have predicted that the vital electoral issue would be Iraq, but the issues of immigration, "change," and the economy have become the driving ones. Great portions of the Republican debates have been dominated by questions about immigration.

Most candidates agree that illegal immigration (or undocumented Americans) present a number of problems that haven't been effectively addressed at either the state or federal level. Control of immigration is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government, and the failure of the federal government to govern immigration has left the states holding the bag on issues like law and order, health services, education, and government services. Increasingly states are turning to controversial measures in a disjointed attempt to fix the system. Meanwhile, many business owners rely upon the check, unskilled labor that illegal immigrants provide. Many labor groups oppose illegal immigration because it creates unfair wage competition that tends to keep wages lower than they should be (illegal immigrants are often paid in cash or "under the table" to avoid payment of federal and state payroll taxes).

Hillary Clinton was hit early in the campaign when she seemed to support a state ID proposal for illegal immigrants; she has since backed off. Last year, McCain co-sponsored the so-called "Amnesty Bill" that would give illegal immigrants citizenship in return for a fine, some back taxes, and some other requirements. He has since repented of his "don't call it amnesty" proposal.

What can be done then? Here are some of the proposals:

Amnesty: Allow immigrants currently residing in the nation illegally to follow a legal path to citizenship. The path can include a waiting period, background check, return to homeland, payment of back taxes, registration with the government, fines, or other requirements. This proposal recognizes that illegal immigrants are an important part of our economy and allows for minimal economic disruption. Proponents of amnesty do not like to call it amnesty. "Amnesty" has become a dirty word in American politics. Opponents believe that it rewards illegal behavior and is unfair to those who have been waiting for their chance at legal immigration.

Guest Worker: A guest worker program would allow illegal immigrants to work as legal guests in the United States. This includes registration and a limited time-frame for working in the United States. It is similar to amnesty but without allowing citizenship at the end of the process. Many people oppose this because they think it will become another avenue of illegal immigration. Those for it claim that immigrants do the jobs that "Americans won't do" and that eliminating illegal immigrants from the workforce would devastate the U.S. economy. In addition, they argue that this would require the workers to pay taxes.

Secure the borders: This proposal calls for a serious federal effort to end illegal immigration through any or all of the following: a new barrier on the border (both electronic and physical), more border patrol agents, and an active and energetic effort to stop all illegal immigration. Most proponents of this proposal argue that this is only a partial solution as it ignores the estimated 10-15 million illegal immigrants currently in the country. Those opposed to the "fence" claim that it would be a gigantic waste of money, and that immigrants would still find ways across as long as there is an economic incentive to do so.

Deport all illegal immigrants: While most people believe this to be a pragmatic impossibility, some believe that anyone who breaks the law in order to enter the United States is a criminal and deserves deportation. Others find the possibility to verge on the precipice of ethnic-cleansing.

Revoke automatic citizenship for children born in the United States: The proponents of this idea argue that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded by having their children born in the U.S. declared legal citizens. To accomplish this would mean revoking the right to jus soli guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

English-only education: This proposal attempts to address the concerns of those who think that the United States will ended up with a permanent, unassimilated sub-culture (much like Quebec in Canada). It is also thought that English-only education will let immigrants know that they are not welcome if they cannot speak English.

Attrition: Attrition is an attempt to force illegal immigrants to self-deport. Instead of organizing and paying for the deportation of over ten million illegal immigrants, attrition would remove the economic incentives for living in the United States illegally by forcing businesses to confirm the legality of its workers. Businesses who fail to do so would be punished by stiff fines and possible criminal charges. Those who argue for attrition claim that employers who employ illegal immigrants do so with full knowledge of the status of the workers in order to save money on payroll expenses.

It is difficult to have an honest discussion of immigration in the U.S. today. Charges of racism and fascism fly easy from the lips of both sides, and neither party wants to forever lose the votes of such a large group of potential voters (Irish and Italian Catholics have voted Democratic ever since Republicans embraced Nativism in the 1800's). While most Americans are uncomfortable with the rapid influx of immigrants legal and illegal, most also recognize that immigrants serve a vital role in the economy and that the Statue of Liberty means something. Americans are proud that people around the world desire to move to the United States for all that it offers, yet are fearful that too much immigration will change America into something unrecognizable.

Read this article at AFP to see the impact of what one state is trying to do. Is Arizona on the right track or is there a fundamental flaw to Arizona's approach?

--Cicerone

Video from the Top Four Candidates

Election '08: Florida Primaries

Democrats (no delegates awarded):
50% Hillary Clinton
33% Barrack Obama
14% John Edwards
1% Dennis Kucinich



Republicans
36% John McCain
31% Mitt Romney
15% Rudy Guiliani
14% Mike Huckabee
3% Ron Paul
1% Fred Thompson

0% Duncan Hunter
Source: CNN.com

Fallout: Guiliani's plan fails; is he about to drop out and endorse McCain?

--Cicerone

Photo Source: johnmccain.com

Election '08: South Carolina Democratic Primary Results

Results
55% Obama
27% Clinton
18% Edwards
0% Kucinich




Impact: Caroline and Ted Kennedy endorse Barack. Clintons are under attack for race-baiting.

Up next: Florida Primary (Tuesday, January 29). Once again, Florida has no Democratic delegates as a result of punishment for moving their primary up in the primary season, but the vote count has suddenly become vital for Clinton as the last major vote before Super Tuesday.
Maine primaries will be held Sunday, February 3.

--Cicerone



Photo Source: Barackobama.com
Source: CNN.com

For Discussion: Open Thread

This may be the hardest discussion for you yet this year. There is no topic. You get to write about whatever you wish to write about. The only limitation is that what you write must somehow relate to government, politics, or our classroom discussions. For those of you afraid of such an open-ended topic, you can wait till someone else posts and then comment on his or her post.

--Cicerone

Election '08: NV and Rep SC

Nevada Caucus results (from CNN.com):
Democratic Caucus:
51% Clinton
45% Obama
4% Edwards
0% Uncommitted
0% Kucinich
0% Richardson

Republican Caucus
51% Romney
14% Paul
13% McCain
8% Huckabee
8% Thompson
4% Guiliani
2% Hunter
0% Tancredo

South Carolina Republican Primary (Source CNN.com)
33% McCain
30% Huckabee
16% Thompson
15% Romney
4% Paul
2% Guiliani
0% Hunter

Current Delegate count found here.

Next: South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday, January 26 and Democratic and Republican primaries in Florida on Tuesday, January 29.

--Cicerone

Election '08: Mitt Wins Michigan!

Democrats:

1. Clinton 55%

2. Undecided 40%

3. Kucinich 4%

4. Dodd 1%

5. Gravel less than 1%

Note: Because Michigan was punished by the DNC for moving its primary up on the calendar, no Michigan delegates will be recognized at the convention. Obama and Edwards chose not to contest the election.

Republicans

1. Romney 39%

2. McCain 30%

3. Huckabee 16%

4. Paul 6%

5. Thompson 4%

6. Guiliani 3%

7. Uncommitted 2%

8. Duncan Hunter less than 1%

Source: CNN.com

Photo Credits: Hillaryclinton.com and Mittromney.com

Up next: Nevada caucuses and Republican Primary in SC on Saturday, January 19.

--Cicerone

For Discussion: Why do we need memorials?

Since earliest recorded history, mankind has been compelled to construct memorials to the fallen. From the ancient pyramids to the Lincoln Memorial to Jim Morrison's grave, the monuments of a people say as much about the people that constructed them as they do about the dead.

Abraham Lincoln was at the dedication of the memorial cemetery at Gettysburg when he gave this short speech in 1863:

"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln had a very strong sense of the purpose of memorial: It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain [...]. In other words, a memorial should serve to inspire the living to finish the honorable work for which the fallen have given their lives.

American monuments have in the past tended to be large white stone structures inscribed with words of wisdom. The Vietnam Memorial changed all that.

Read this article from the NY Post concerning the changing values reflected in our nation's monuments.

Some questions for discussion (you do not have to answer all of the questions):
1. What are the main objections of the author of the NY Post article to the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?

2. Do you agree or disagree with the objections of the author?

3. What would Lincoln say about the Vietnam and 9/11 memorials?

4. Are memorials necessary or even desirable? Why or why not?

5. What functions should memorials have in American society?

--Cicerone

Photo Credit: Flickr

Election '08: Candidate Calculator

Here is the link for the VAJOE candidate calculator: HERE

--Cicerone

Election '08: Friday News Roundup

Human Events, a leading conservative publication, has endorsed Fred Thomson.

John Kerry has endorsed Barack Obama.

Dennis Kucinich has asked for a statewide recount in New Hampshire. The hitch? He has to pay for it.

Bill Richardson has dropped out.

Micheal Bloomberg is considering a run as an independant.

CNN.com has an excellent election center with nice summary pages for each candidate.

--Cicerone

Ron Paul: Savior of the Constitution or Racist Truther?

Yesterday, The New Republic published an expose' on Ron Paul's old newsletters. The story includes scans of several of the newsletters. Here are some choice quotes:

King City?

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton, occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City “to reclaim it for our people.”

Hmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolic?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

And about MLK:

He was also a compsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this “Christian minister” and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

In fairness, TNR is not exactly known for their fairness or high journalistic standards, but the newsletters were published under Paul's name. Couple these with the tendancy of Paul supporters to also be 9/11 Truthers (those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job) and to attack anyone who criticizes Paul as members of a vast consipiracy to silence him as well as Paul's supporters tendancy to resort to threats when challenged has left many wondering just who the real Paul is.

Text of email to National Review Online after they published a link to the TNR article:

Subject: I'll never trust the NRO again

Auto forwarded by a Rule

There's gotta be consequences to what you people are doing. Hannity got chased off the streets... he's lucky that's all that happens. Rudy got locked in a bathroom in a boat in MI. The revolution is real, not symbolic... I wouldn't smack at a hornets nest.Paul is not a racist. He's very kind. All of his supporters aren't as kind or layed back. They take things like this serious.The media is generating hate and their own version of blowback. In America, blowback lead to 9/11. What will your blowback lead to? We're really starting to hate you folks. I was a journalist, I read the NRO, I vote GOP. I hate you. I can't imagine how others feel right now about reading that misleading crap.

The reference to Hannity can be explained in a video found here (click on the link on the right side of the page) or on youtube. If you are brave you can read through the comments left by Paul supporters on youtube.

Paul's statement in answer to the TNR article can be found here. Here it is in full:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Does Paul's explanation fly or is the content of the newsletters consistent with his viewpoints?

--Cicerone

Election '08: New Hampshire Results: Hillary Cried, Obama Slide

Results (source CNN.com) with 99% reporting:

Democrats:
39% Clinton
37% Obama
17% Edwards
5% Richardson
1% Kuchinich
Less than 1% Biden, Gravel, Dodd

Republicans:
37% McCain
31% Romney
11% Huckabee
9% Guiliani
8% Paul
1% Thompson
1% Duncan Hunter

The race for both parties nominations is still wide open. However, the Democrats seem to have narrowed the field to Obama and Clinton while the Republicans still have three or four front-runners. Why do the bottom candidates continue to run when they know they have no chance?

What's next? The Michigan primaries for both parties will be January 15.

--Cicerone

Election '08: Obama Tied, Clinton Cried!

Until Obama's surprising victory in the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton was considered to be the frontrunner for not only the Democratic nomination, but also to become the next president of the United States. Her decisive defeat in Iowa has left many wondering, "What else can Clinton do to win?" At least one blogger suggested that desperation would drive her to a public shedding of tears.

Now there is this from the ABCNews Political Radar Blog: Clinton choked up in public (click on the link in the text to see the video). After becoming clearly emotional, she goes on to indirectly attack the inexperience of Obama. Senator Clinton has always been vulnerable to charges of insincerity and cold calculation, and this incident has only highlighted the issue. Some claim that the real Clinton is at last showing through. Others argue that it is a deliberate stunt designed to make her seem more warm, compassionate, and sympathetic much like the seemingly sudden appearance of the "Hillary Cackle" which is seen here in this heavily manipulated montage:



Some questions to consider:
1. Are the tears an instance of insincerity and cold calculation or do they reflect the real Clinton?
2. Does it matter whether or not the tears are insincere and calculated if they work? Aren't all politicians expected to be calculating? Is it more important for a politician to be successful or sincere? Read the text of the ABC blog:

After the event, Pernold Young told ABC News that she was glad Clinton showed emotion.
"She allowed herself to feel," Pernold Young said. " I was surprised and I said, 'wow there's someone there.'"
Another woman in the group, Alison Hamilton of Portsmouth, New Hampshire said she, like most of the people in the group, had been considering Obama.
But after seeing Clinton become emotional, she said she was going to vote for Clinton.
"Her whole thing today really convinced me but that really did clinch it for me," Hamilton said. "She's very impressive."

The initial response seems to suggest that the tears were effective in changing people's minds about her. Does it matter if they were sincere?

It will be interesting to see the impact this might have on tomorrow's New Hampshire primary.

--Cicerone

For Discussion: Rights vs Right

The US Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in order to, "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." In other words, Congress wanted to make the rights of the people and the legal limitations placed on the US government perfectly clear so that the government could be trusted to act for the benefit of the people.

While there were precedents for such a list (the English Bill of Rights and the Bills of Rights of individual states), the US Bill of Rights (adopted 1791) was revolutionary in both its guarantee of a wide range of personal freedoms and its explicitly stated limitations on governmental power. Indeed, some historians argue that the adoption of the Bill of Rights was the last act of an American Revolution that began with the signing of Declaration of Independence in 1776.

Since then, the Bill of Rights has become a source of sustained and, at times, virulent debate. Despite the continuing debates concerning the scope and meaning of the Bill of Rights, only a few have questioned the prudence of such a list without a corresponding list of civic duties. Is it right to demand one's rights from one's nation without also expressing a willingness to serve that nation or at the very least exercise those rights responsibly? Has the Bill of Rights created an American citizenry that is so concerned about protecting their own personal freedoms that few Americans consider what responsibilities go with those freedoms?

G.K. Chesterton, an English apologist of the early 20th century, remarked, "To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." This quote is also located at the bottom of The Patriots' Lyceum webpage. How does the idea expressed in this quote apply to the Bill of Rights and to the responsibilities of Americans?

--Cicerone

Election '08: Iowa Caucus Results

Iowa Results (Source CNN.com):

Democrats

1. Obama 38%

2. Edwards 30%

3. Clinton 29%

4. Richardson 2%

5. Biden 1%

6. Three tied: Dodd, Gavel, Kuchinich 0%

Republicans

1. Huckabee 34%

2. Romney 25%

3. Thompson 13%

4. McCain 13%

5. Paul 10%

6. Giuliani 4%

7. Hunter 1%


There is a useful color-coded map and calendar of what comes next in primary season at CNN.com. Click here. Super Tuesday if February 5.

ABC News has a very short match-o-matic survey that matches the opinions that you input with the top three candidates who hold those opinions. Click here to find your perfect match. Some of the candidates have already dropped out. No, I will not tell you my three matches were, but feel free to share your own in the comments.

--Cicerone

About Us: Welcome and Rules of Engagement

Welcome to The Patriots' Lyceum. This website has been set up by a history teacher (Cicerone) for the benefit and use of his senior government classes, but anyone is welcome to participate in the discussions. Comments are moderated by the teacher. Comments or posts that do not meet the Rules of Engagement will not be posted.

Rules of Engagement:

For visitors:
1. No profanity
2. No spam
3. Reasoned commentary only

For students:
1. No profanity
2. No spam
3. Reasoned commentary only
4. Complete sentences and correct grammar only
5. Provide a link for any specific stats, fact, etc that you use in an argument. Facts win arguments.
6. No internet/text abbreviations/terminology. I am not jk. :(
7. Respect other commentators
8. Any links provided must work and link to appropriate websites
9. Honors Government Students are required to leave at least one comment on any post that's title begins: "For Discussion."
10. Honors Government Students are required to read all posts and be prepared to discuss in class.

--Cicerone