Matt's Thoughts on Abortion - Roe vs. Wade

So, today we talked about woman's rights and the topic of abortion came up. Many people have different views about what exactly is right and what is wrong. Me personally, I believe that if the woman is either too young, too poor and can't raise a child, or for some good reason can't have the baby, they can get an abortion within the first 2 months while the fetus hasn't developed yet or really is a "baby". This, in my mind would be much better than having a baby being born from someone under 18 with no help and having a kid try to grow up in such bad conditions. But that's just me.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

First off are u for or against abortions?
If yes when is it right to have them and under what conditions?
If not what are your reasonings?

Who stays at home? Mom or Dad?

Mike asks,

How come the men in today's time are supposed to be the ones to bring home the money and support the family? It is very stereotypical that the men go to work in the morning and come home late and do the same thing day after day while the woman stays home and raises the family. How come it can't flip flop? Would America change?

I think that the woman could go work and the guy could stay home or the other way around. I don't really care at all. But, I believe that the woman should still help support the family instead of raising it. Plus, the kids could be raised with a little manhood instead of all womanhood during the day. I'm not trying to be sexist at all but I know a few guys are thinking the same thing. What do you think?

Editor's note: For a contextual frame of reference, we were talking about the women's movement in class this week and discussed women's changing roles in both the house and the workplace.

What did the President know and when did he know it?

When we were watching the Nixon video on Watergate, I was wondering, do you think Nixon really did it? The problem is, is that there is enough evidence for both yes and no (even though to me Nixon knew).

For yes, you could say that the “plumbers” were sent by Nixon’s administration, how could he have no known?

For no, Nixon’s campaign people could have taken a step further than Nixon wanted and acted without his knowledge. What do you think? Do you think Nixon knew what was going on or that he had no idea?

Dan

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal"

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If the President approves something because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant magnitude, then the President's decision, in that instance...enables those who carry [the President's order] out to carry it out without violating the law. " - Richard M. Nixon

During all of the Vietnam protests, President Nixon became convinced that there was a foreign power/country/enterprise directing these American kids, so he wanted to find out who and how these directives were getting done. He signed an Executive Order that allowed the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the hopes of finding that foreign element that funded subversive groups that were planning protests and other crazy things. The FBI could tap more phones, open mail, and break into homes and offices w/o warrants. These powers were later curtailed by Congress in the mid 70s, but then expanded again recently in the name of securing the nation from another terrorist attack called the Patriot Act.

"Did Erlichmann inform me that these two men were going to California? He may well have. And if he had, I would have said, 'Go right ahead'." - Nixon, in reference to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt going to California to break into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office.

So, give me your comments on Nixon's statements.
Or, comment on any similarities to today's events in the war on terror.

Check out this website on Watergate: http://watergate.info/

Mr. W.

Nixon's "Myths of Vietnam"

You've recently read or heard summaries of the first chapter from former President Nixon's book, No More Vietnams. The title of the chapter was entitled "The Myths of Vietnam" and in it he presents the four defining myths of the war. My questions for you are as follows:

1. Do you agree with President Nixon that a foreign policy with the "willingness to use power to defend national interests" is something for which the U.S. should strive? Why or why not? In other words, Nixon feels that the U.S. should be willing to use its armed forces when necessary instead of just relying on sanctions, diplomacy, the United Nations, etc.

2. Nixon said, "In the end, Vietnam was lost on the political front in the U.S., not on the battlefront in Southeast Asia." Give at least one example from what we've studied that can prove this statement false, and then provide another statement that can show how Nixon's assertion is true.

3. Under "Myth #2: The Vietnam War was unwinnable", Nixon states that "when we signed the Paris Peace agreements in 1973, we had won the war. We then proceeded to lose the peace." He blames Congress for not providing enough military aid to support the South Vietnamese government after the U.S. military had left in January 1973. His rationale was that the Soviet Union was supporting North Vietnam, we should support South Vietnam even if we're not fighting the war. Please comment on his initial statement about winning the war (keeping in mind the original reasons why we were there in the first place), and then tell me if Congress did the right thing by cutting off aid to SV between 1973 and 1975 when South Vietnam fell (remembering the details from chaos that ensued and mentioned in this chapter).

Pick two of these questions to answer in thoughtful paragraphs using examples from your notes, videos, and readings.

Returning Vietnam Vets

In class recently we have been discussing the veterans of the Vietnam War. One thing I learned was that when they came home, some Americans were extremely crude to the soldiers, few would even spit on them. Personally, I think that's disgusting and completely inappropriate. Just because you might have disagreed with the war does not give you privileges to disrespect your fellow Americans.

We also learned about the effects that the war left on these soldiers such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and shell shock. I wonder what I would have done if someone I loved left for the war and came back a completely different person.

What are your thoughts?
-How would you react?
-How would you help them deal with something that nobody else can really understand?
-How would you have dealt with the veterans if you disagreed with them going there?

Maddie

Emily on If I Die in a Combat Zone

So we got a new book to read last week, for those of you who haven't noticed, and to me I think that it is a REALLY bad book. I know, we haven't gotten far in the book yet, so it may get better, but just from reading the first few chapters, it is really confusing.

It's confusing because all it is is these soliders in battle thoughout the Vietnam war. It also is kind of disturbing. It gives off the f- bomb a lot which is totally uncalled for and it also has some really nasty images. I know that it is a book about the war, and it's supposed to be all bloody and nasty, but I think it overdoes it. It's just another book about some soldiers and their journey thoughout a war.

So as you can see, I don't find this book very exciting. So I want to know if anyone agrees with me, or if i'm thinking about it way too much.
Thanks, Emily

Was it all about RUBBER?

This week we talked about the war in Vietnam. We talked about it's parralellism to the Revolutionary war, and how they had communist aid. We talked about how even with a 10:1 death ratio in our favor, the VC still thought they were winners. But I don't care about any of that, I don't even get why we were there in the first place.


What does Vietnam have that we need? Rubber? If you can get a car to run on Rubber then by all means take over Vietnam, but CARS don't run on rubber!!! All those who agree with me, good job, and all those who disagree...I don't like you.

Alex S.

Maggie on the Draft

Today in class we talked about the draft and what we would do if we were in it at that time. Everyone brought up valid points, but I think that I would probably run away. I have my whole life to live, and I wouldn't want to compromise it for a war without a real point. I do think that I would be a protester of the [Vietnam] war because I don't believe in it and I think I would feel the same way then too. What do you guys think?

So my questions are;
1. What would you do about the draft?
2. Do you think that you would be one of the people protesting at the colleges even though it could be dangerous when the National Guard comes in?

-Maggie

Holden Caulfield vs. Forrest Gump

Holden Caulfield v. Forrest Gump

This week when we watched Forrest Gump, I noticed that Forrest pretty much just went with the flow. He always just did what he was told and luck came to him. Then, when I thought about Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye, it seemed as if they were total opposites. Holden was a rebel and really didn't have any luck. His family was messed up, he always got kicked out of school, and he somehow always managed to get himself into a fight. However, in the end of Catcher, Holden finds his 'happy place' with his sister when he sits in the rain watching his sister on the carousel. Forrest also finds his 'happy place' when he lets Forrest Jr. off to school for the first time. I found it ironic that both of them only felt complete when they went against how they had acted all other times. Like everyone expected Forrest to be immature so he never was faced with mature decisions, but he finally grew up when he let his son go off to school. And with Holden he was always expected to be mature because he was always sent off to boarding school but when he finally let himself go and was able to be a kid for once he found himself happy. Do you guys thing they're more alike or more opposite?

-Madi