Friday, May 26, 2006

Last notebook list (Due Friday, June 2)

Amsco 21 and multiple choice
Progressive Era lecture notes
Amsco 22 notecards or notes and mc
World War One lecture notes
Amsco 23 notecards or notes and mc
Amsco 24 notecards or notes and mc
Capitalism in crisis lecture notes
Amsco 25 notecards or notes and mc
World War Two crib sheet w/ lecture annotations
Amsco 26 notecards or notes and mc
Cold War lecture notes
Amsco 27 notecards or notes and mc
Amsco 28*
Amsco 29*
Amsco 30*
* Affidavits that you read are acceptable here.

Thursday, May 04, 2006


The test begins at 8:00
in room 118 of the Seminary Building.
Please be there early;
between 7:30 and 7:45.
Go North on 42
Go left at Mt. Clinton Pike
Turn right on Smith Avenue.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Practice Test Answers

From page 677 in AMSCO:

1) A
2) A
3) D
4) B
5) E
6) B
7) C
8) B
9) C
10) D
11) E
12) B
13) A
14) E
15) E (Note: I would not have put judicial review as a distractor since this was a major Marshallian contribution. However, the question asked for CONSISTENT STRESS rather than the one time MArbury v. Madison
16) B
17) A (Though one could argue for B IF you think consideration means "something to deal with" rather than solely motivation)
18) E
19) A
20) B
21) C
22) D
23) A
24) B
25) C
26) D (Note: Also used during the Barbary pirate conflict. BAD distractor here)
27) E
28) E
29) D
30) E
31) B
32) A
33) Tueting didn't know. Don't feel bad. We only hit A, B, and C hard. Ellie looked it up. The answer is E.
34) C
35) D
36) B
37) E
38) A
39) C
40) A
41) B
42) A
43) B. However, the case was based on opposition to the draft in World War One. BAD distractor - it could easily have confused you. Don't count it wrong if you D./
44) E
45) E
46) D
47) A
48) B
49) C
50) E
51) A
52) E
53) A
54) C
55) A
56) D
57) C
58) E
59) D
60) D
61) D
62) D
63) D
64) A
65) C
66) D
67) C (It was important to stay in power, but the question says "would have said" which opens the door to justification. Bad question.)
68) A
69) E(But one thinks you could justify a couple of others...) Don't mark it wrong.
70) A
71) C
72) A
73) E
74) D
75) C
76) C and D are both right, being intertwined.
77) D
78) B
79) E
80) B

Count up the number right. More than 48 puts you in a postion for a three. A 56 puts you into the upper two brackets.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

For Katie, Kyle and the other Artists.

This is not, I repeat not, important for American history.

It is, however, an amusing jouney through art from the point of view of Mr. Potatohead.

Wik Wik (For The Monty Python Fans Out There)


In a happy congruence of history and current events, Robert Samuelson puts our current immigration controversy into historical perspective.

Reprinted below for educational purposes:

Conspiracy Against Assimilation
By Robert J. SamuelsonThursday, April 20, 2006; A25
It's all about assimilation -- or it should be. One of America's glories is that it has assimilated many waves of immigrants. Outsiders have become insiders. But it hasn't been easy. Every new group has struggled: Germans, Irish, Jews and Italians. All have encountered economic hardship, prejudice and discrimination. The story of U.S. immigration is often ugly. If today's wave of immigration does not end in assimilation, it will be a failure. By this standard, I think the major contending sides in the present bitter debate are leading us astray. Their proposals, if adopted, would frustrate assimilation.
On the one hand, we have the "cop" school. It adamantly opposes amnesty and would make being here illegally a felony, as opposed to a lesser crime. It toughens a variety of penalties against illegal immigrants. Elevating the seriousness of the crime would supposedly deprive them of jobs, and then illegal immigrants would return to Mexico, El Salvador or wherever. This is a pipe dream; the numbers are simply too large.
But it is a pipe dream that, if pursued, would inflict enormous social damage. The mere threat of a crackdown stigmatizes much of the Hispanic population -- whether they're legal or illegal immigrants, or whether they've been here for generations. (In 2004 there were 40 million Hispanics, says the Pew Hispanic Center; about 55 percent were estimated to be native-born, 25 percent legal immigrants and 20 percent illegal immigrants.) People feel threatened and insulted. Who wouldn't?
On the other hand we have the "guest worker" advocates. They want 400,000 or more new foreign workers annually. This would supposedly curtail illegal immigration -- people who now sneak into the country could get work permits -- and also cure "shortages" of unskilled American workers. Everyone wins. Not really.
For starters, the term is a misnomer. Whatever the rules, most guest workers would not leave. The pull of U.S. wages (on average, almost five times what can be earned in Mexico) is too great. Moreover, there's no general shortage of unskilled workers. In March, the unemployment rate of high school dropouts 25 years and older was 7 percent; since 1996, it has been below 6 percent in only two months. By contrast, the unemployment rate of college graduates in March was 2.2 percent. Given the glut of unskilled workers relative to demand, their wages often lag inflation. From 2002 to 2004, consumer prices rose 5.5 percent. Median wages rose 4.8 percent for janitors, 4.3 percent for landscapers and not at all for waitresses.
Advocates of guest workers don't acknowledge that poor, unskilled immigrants -- whether legal or illegal -- create huge social costs. Every year the Census Bureau issues a report on "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." Here's what the 2004 report shows:
· Since 1990 the number of Hispanics with incomes below the government's poverty line has risen 52 percent; that's almost all (92 percent) of the increase in poor people.
· Among children, disparities are greater. Over the same period, Hispanic children in poverty are up 43 percent; meanwhile, the numbers of black and non-Hispanic white children in poverty declined 16.9 percent and 18.5 percent, respectively.
· Hispanics account for most (61 percent) of the increase of Americans without health insurance since 1990. The overall increase was 11.1 million; Hispanics, 6.7 million.
By most studies, poor immigrants pay less in taxes than they use in government services. As these social costs have risen, so has the backlash. Already, there's a coalition of Mayors and County Executives for Immigration Reform. It includes 63 cities, counties and towns, headed by Republicans and Democrats, ranging from Cook County, Illinois (population: 5.3 million) to Gilliam County, Oregon (population: 1,817). Coalition members want the federal government to reimburse their extra costs.
We have a conspiracy against assimilation. One side would offend and ostracize much of the Hispanic community. The other would encourage mounting social and economic costs. Either way we get a more polarized society.
On immigration, I am an optimist. We are basically a decent, open and tolerant nation. Americans respect hard work and achievement. That's why assimilation has ultimately triumphed. But I am not a foolish optimist. Assimilation requires time and the right conditions. It cannot succeed if we constantly flood the country with new, poor immigrants or embark on a vendetta against those already here.
I have argued that our policies should recognize these realities. Curb illegal immigration with true border barriers. Provide legal status (call it amnesty or whatever) -- first work permits, then citizenship -- for most illegal immigrants already here. Remove the job lure by imposing harsh fines against employers who hire new illegal immigrants. Reject big guest-worker programs.
It's sometimes said that today's Hispanics will resemble yesterday's Italians. Although they won't advance as rapidly as some other groups of more skilled immigrants, they'll still move into the mainstream. Many have -- and will. But the overall analogy is a stretch, according to a recent study, "Italians Then, Mexicans Now," by sociologist Joel Perlmann of Bard College. Since 1970 wages of Mexican immigrants compared with those of native whites have declined. By contrast, wages of Italians and Poles who arrived early in the last century rose over time. For the children of immigrants, gaps are also wide. Second-generation Italians and Poles typically earned 90 percent or more compared to native whites. For second-generation Mexican Americans, the similar figure is 75 percent.
One big difference between then and now: Immigration slowly halted during and after World War I. The Italians and Poles came mainly between 1890 and 1915. Older immigrants didn't always have to compete with newcomers who beat down their wages. There was time for outsiders and insiders to adapt to each other. We should heed history's lesson.


One hopes you recall our discussion of urban evolution. I highlighted the move of the middle class back to the cities in the process of gentrification. If you review your notes, you will see that we discussed how race, class, and sexuality differences led to clashes between the yuppies and the original residents. A perfect storm of these categories has emerged in D.C. and is discussed in today's Washington Post.

Article reprinted below for educational purposes:

In Shaw, Pews vs. Bar Stools
By Jose Antonio VargasWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, April 20, 2006; C01
It was like a scene out of "The People's Court" -- on one side the mostly white supporters of a gay-friendly bar, on the other the parishioners of a black church in Washington's historic Shaw neighborhood.
They all packed the hearing room of the city's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration yesterday to make their case for or against the Be Bar, scheduled to open in June on Ninth Street NW.
"A bar ? Across from my church?" asked Barbara Campbell, who lives on Georgia Avenue NW and for three decades has gone to Scripture Cathedral in Shaw, where she works as a cook in the church's day-care center. "Don't they understand that there is a day-care center in the church?"
She and other parishioners opposed to the bar were seated in the small hearing room, their worries in their faces. Their pastor of more than 40 years, Bishop C.L. Long, was there, too, his staff in tow.
The bar's nearly two dozen supporters were mostly standing, light-blue ribbons pinned to their shirts. Michael Watson was busy handing out the ribbons. He's one of the bar's two owners, both of them D.C. residents, both of them gay.
"This fight here is really more than just about a liquor license, more than just about a bar," says Mark Lee, a 30-year District resident who now lives in Logan Circle. "This is about who gets to decide which establishments open where."
There's nothing new about fights over the location of a bar, gay or otherwise. It happens all the time. But the battle over Be Bar is unfolding in the midst of a wave of gentrification, where race, class and now sexual orientation get thrown into an already simmering pot.
Articles have been written in the gay press about the controversy. Lawyers were on hand yesterday to speak for their respective clients. And people from outside and inside Shaw have weighed in on the issue in recent weeks.
Yesterday ABRA dismissed a protest from the D.C. Black Church Initiative, partly because the group, in a letter to the board, didn't object to Be Bar on legal grounds but because it "will undermine the moral character" of Shaw and "only promote an alternative lifestyle that runs counter to the values" of the neighborhood.
Even Advisory Neighborhood Commissions are divided. Though the bar is within the bounds of ANC 2F, where the six commissioners (all white) have given their support, it's close enough to ANC 2C, where the four commissioners (one of whom is Latino, the rest black) voted 3 to 1 last month to protest the bar's liquor license.
The law states that no liquor license shall be issued to establishments "within 400 feet of a primary, elementary or high school," says Jeff Coudriet, an ABRA spokesman, but the proximity of an establishment to a day-care center "is an additional consideration."
On May 3, ABRA will decide if a group of Scripture parishioners and ANC 2C have legal standing to oppose the bar's license.
"It's hard to not think that they're against this whole thing because I'm gay and it's a bar open to gay people," Watson says of those challenging his business.
Long shakes off such talk. He insists that he didn't know that the Be Bar is gay-friendly. "If this is a gay club, that's bad for the kids," he said yesterday.
He has never been hesitant to express his opinion on homosexuality, and yesterday was no different. "Read the whole chapter," he said, referring to Romans, Chapter 1, which condemns homosexual behavior.
Watson and Long, who found themselves in the same room for the first time, have yet to talk to each other since the controversy started early last month. And the battle over Be Bar, like the recent fights over the long tradition of nonresidential church members double-parking on Sundays, is about a lot more than parking spaces or a bar's liquor license.
Stroll along Ninth Street and residents will talk about their transitioning neighborhood, sometimes politely, sometimes bitterly.
Susan Dugar, a black woman in her forties, grew up in Shaw. "That church has been here forever, through the '60s, the '80s, the ups, the downs" of the District, she said recently. "Gay people who are moving into the city, in Dupont, Logan, in U Street, can't just come in and say, 'We're gonna build this and that in front of it.' "
K.C. Sykora, 24, moved to Shaw two years ago with her roommate. Both are white. "To be honest," she said, "I'm more comfortable with gay people than with churchgoing people."
Sitting inside Azi's Cafe, the barely year-old WiFi-connected coffee shop with black and white floor tiles, Alexander Padro talked of Shaw's changing landscape. In the past year, Queen of Sheba, an Ethiopian eatery; Vegetate, a vegetarian hot spot; and International Lifestyles, a boutique/concierge service/corporate party-thrower with pristine white floors and vases of red roses, have opened on Ninth Street.
Padro is one of Shaw's neighborhood commissioners, and he's the one-man operation behind Shaw Main Streets, an umbrella group that fosters commercial growth in the neighborhood. He is also gay, and the one vote for Be Bar on the commission. Homophobia, he says, has played "a part in all of this."
There are some streets in Shaw where half of the residents are gay and gay couples, he says. He points to DC GuestHouse, the gay-owned B&B in a three-story Victorian that used to be a funeral home and rents its rooms for as much as $300 a night. It's at 10th and O streets, about a block away from Scripture, a longstanding institution on the block.
"I've been a pastor in Shaw for 46 years," Long said while taking a break after the 11 a.m. service on a recent Sunday. A framed photograph of a young Long posing with President Jimmy Carter, who signed it "With best wishes to C.L. Long," was prominently displayed. He lives in Bowie and drives in for Sunday services. He's got a parking spot in front of his church. "We helped clean this area up. Now that we've got the area cleaned up . . ." He pauses.
"Change is good, but it depends on what you're changing to," he says.
He pauses some more.
"But folks need to understand that this church, all churches, play a big part in the community. I have my own opinion on the gay lifestyle, but I don't fight them -- they're welcome to come to our church, because I'm in the business of changing lives. Lives have been changed in this very church, and maybe God can do something for them."
Watson has lived in a three-story house in Shaw for six years. He formerly owned a TCBY, across from Whole Foods on P Street, and partnered with his friend Tom McGuire for Be Bar.
The vibe for the 3,000-square-foot space, he says, is "modern chic meets baroque." The drinks: candy-flavored martinis. The music: Top 40.
The protest, if it continues, would delay the bar's opening for months, if not longer, he says.
"We're rolling the dice right now. We're in limbo. This could go on and on," says Watson, 32. "I understand that change is hard, but I also don't understand it."


As per our discussion this morning, as long as you guys keep up with the reading and material, we will devote the last few class periods to discussion/clarification without tests. Notice the severe caveat.

We are close. Work hard for three more weeks and crush the AP test. Then we can relax.

Friday, April 14, 2006

Keynesian Economics

This blog post is testale.

Wikipedia has a whole long article, but I excerpt below that which is most relevant to our class:

Keynesian economics (pronounced ['kejnziən]), also called Keynesianism, is an economic theory based on the ideas of an English Economist, John Maynard Keynes, as put forward in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936 in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Keynesian economics promotes a mixed economy, where both the state and the private sector play an important role. The rise of Keynesianism marked the end of laissez-faire economics (economic theory based on the belief that markets and the private sector could operate well on their own, without state intervention).
In Keynes's theory, general (macro-level) trends can overwhelm the micro-level behavior of individuals. Instead of the economic process being based on continuous improvements in potential output, as most classical economics had believed from the late 1700s on, Keynes asserted the importance of aggregate demand for goods as the driving factor of the economy, especially in periods of downturn. From this he argued that government policies could be used to promote demand at a macro level, to fight high unemployment and deflation of the sort seen during the 1930s.
A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that there is no strong automatic tendency for output and employment to move toward full employment levels. This, Keynes thought, conflicts with the tenets of classical economics, and those schools, such as supply-side economics or the Austrian School, which assume a general tendency towards equilibrium in a restrained money creation economy. In neoclassical economics, which combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of General equilibrium allow for price adjustment to achieve this goal. More broadly, Keynes saw this as a general theory, in which resource utilization could be high or low, whereas previous economics focused on the particular case of full utilization.

John Maynard Keynes was one of a wave of thinkers who perceived increasing cracks in the assumptions and theories which held sway at that time. Keynes questioned two of the dominant pillars of economic theory: the need for a solid basis for money, generally a gold standard, and the theory, expressed as Say's Law, which stated that decreases in demand would only cause price declines, rather than affecting real output and employment. In his political views, Keynes was no revolutionary. He was pro-business and pro-entrepreneur, but was very critical of rentiers and speculators, from a somewhat Fabian perspective. He was a "new" or modern liberal.
It was his experience with the Treaty of Versailles which pushed him to make a break with previous theory. His The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) not only recounted the general economics, as he saw them, of the Treaty, but the individuals involved in making it. The book established him as an economist who had the practical political skills to influence policy. In the 1920s, Keynes published a series of books and articles which focused on the effects of state power and large economic trends, developing the idea of monetary policy as something separate from merely maintaining currency against a fixed peg. He increasingly believed that economic systems would not automatically right themselves to attain "the optimal level of production." This is expressed in his famous quote, "In the long run, we are all dead", implying that it doesn't matter that optimal production levels are attained in the long run, because it'd be a very long run indeed. However, he neither had proof, nor a formalism to express these ideas.
In the late 1920s, the world economic system began to break down, after the shaky recovery that followed World War I. With the global drop in production, critics of the gold standard, market self-correction, and production-driven paradigms of economics moved to the fore. Dozens of different schools contended for influence. Further, some pointed to the Soviet Union as a successful planned economy which had avoided the disasters of the capitalist world and even argued for a move toward socialism. Others pointed to the supposed success of fascism in Mussolini's Italy.
Into this tumult stepped Keynes, promising not to institute revolution but to save capitalism. He circulated a simple thesis: there were more factories and transportation networks than could be used at the current ability of individuals to pay and that the problem was on the demand side.
But many economists insisted that business confidence, not lack of demand, was the root of the problem, and that the correct course was to slash government expenditures and to cut wages to raise business confidence and willingness to hire unemployed workers. Yet others simply argued that "nature would make its course," solving the Depression automatically by "shaking out" unneeded productive capacity.

Amsco 24

You may take notes or make notecards by your preference. Do the multiple choice questions.

Alphabet agencies you need to know (what the acronym stands for, whether it was relief, recovery, or reform, and what it specifically did):


The FDIC, FHA, and SEC are important today. Why?

I think there will be around 60 questions on this section. Test when we return from break.

Class Notes For Carly

Capitalism in Crisis

Causes of Depression
Multiple causation; hard to pull threads apart.
10 economists might give 12 answers. Ha.
Causes feed off one another: Vicious cycle (viscous)

International interconnectedness
Germany’s war reparations
Dawes, Keynes
Map of Dawes plan: Not as ridiculous as it sounds.
Current: Mexico
Third world debt (Bono don’t know)

Marx’s prediction of crisis and revolution.
Hitler/Mussolini/Japan Proto-fascicts, communists abroad

But capitalism survives in US (albeit heavily modified: mixed economy)
Hoover’s response; analogy to post 9-11 bailouts
FDR and Keynes

We were in danger.
Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath
Huey Long
Father Coughlin
Francis Townshend

Relief, Recovery, Reform
Does not actually lead to end of depression (what did?)
But gives people hope!
Fireside Chats

Experimental/redundant: Hundred days and alphabet agencies.
Differ from progressivism

Shift away from individual toward collective responsibility
(FJT frontier thesis; two generations removed. Link?)

On locus of power continuum toward unitary – biggest single shift
Compare Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln, Bush

Imperial presidency
Compare Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, T.R.
Court conflict as result of conflict over “law making powers” of the New Deal agencies.
Court packing (link to Jefferson’s impeachment campaign)

Keynesian economics.
Supply side challenge.
Nixon: We are all Keynsians now

Legacies of the New Deal
Summarize Amsco, but emphasize:
New Deal Coalition: Brings African-Americans over to the Democratic party (want activist government) Uneasy coexistence with segregationist part of party.


Post a reply if you can see this.

Monday, April 10, 2006

Immigration Protests With Historical Perspective

Victor Davis Hanson, a conservative intellectual, has written an essay about the immigration protests. Note how he draws connections to the California recall election (discussed in our Progressivism class) and includes a reference to the "salad bowl" idea of immigration (he seems to prefer a melting pot). Read and enjoy:

April 1, 2006Protesters Run AmokThe backlash on immigration law may be yet to Victor Davis HansonReal Clear Politics
[This article appeared as “The Protests — Whose Backlash?” in]
Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens, along with Mexican-Americans and Hispanics in general, hit the streets throughout the United States this past week in one of the largest displays of public outrage since the Vietnam-War era.
The conventional wisdom was that the supposedly spontaneous outbursts of immigrant pride and anger took lawmakers by surprise. In response, politicians may backtrack on some of the tougher proposals concerning border enforcement, from constructing a wall to deportations. The media tended to emphasize the heartfelt anguish of the demonstrators, who often on selected televised clips carried American flags and were shown reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
But here in Central California that is not the public face of the demonstrations that we saw — which were mostly angry and, in the case of truant high-school students, so often unfortunately characterized by Mexican chauvinism, if not overt racism of the La Raza ("the race") type. And while these public outbursts were for the present just noisy, the private counter-reactions to them, I fear, are going to grow larger and angrier still.
If many thousands of illegal aliens marched in their zeal, many more millions of Americans of all different races and backgrounds watched — and seethed. They were struck by the Orwellian incongruities — Mexican flags, chants of "Mexico, Mexico," and the spectacle of illegal alien residents lecturing citizen hosts on what was permissible in their own country.
If the demonstrators thought that they were bringing attention to their legitimate grievances — the sheer impossibility of deporting 11 million residents across the border or the hypocrisy of Americans de facto profiting from "illegals" who cook their food, make their beds, and cut their lawns — they seemed oblivious to the embarrassing contradictions of their own symbolism and rhetoric. Most Americans I talked to in California summed up their reactions to the marches as something like, 'Why would anyone wave the flag of the country that they would never return to — and yet scream in anger at those with whom they wish to stay?' Depending on the particular questions asked, polls reveal that somewhere around 60-80% of the public is vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.
When schools were dismissed due to student walkouts and traffic disrupted, Americans began to see the wages of their own indifference to the problems of illegal immigration. Insidiously over the last 30 years we have allowed an entire apartheid community to grow up in enclaves in the American Southwest and occasionally beyond — one by language and psyche that may well feel more romantically attached to the Mexico it left and won't return to than to the United States it sought out and must stay in.
To understand the backlash to all this that is rising, think back to the 2003 California recall election for governor. When it was clear that Gray Davis had lost public support and was finished, for a while it looked as if Democratic Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante might well be a shoo-in. After all, California was a solidly blue state, and the Republican challengers, actor and political novice Arnold Schwarzenegger and the unknown State Senator Tom McClintock, would probably split the minority Republican vote.
But then Bustamante very quickly began to scare the electorate. He was unapologetic about his past MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) ties, even when that otherwise irrelevant radical student group's mottos and separatist constitution found their way into the public discourse. He tried to redefine his unsavory fund-raising with the Indian gaming industry as a point of ethnic pride, promised driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and then aired seemingly suicidal television ads showing him shouting to Latino crowds in a sea of waving red flags.
At the time I remember a liberal friend of mine from the Bay Area calling up, rather shaken, asking in disbelief, "Who is this guy and why does he always scream to screamers?" Bustamante was subsequently trounced and couldn't receive a third of the vote from a liberal electorate that, he apparently forgot, once passed overwhelmingly ballot propositions banning state aid to illegal aliens, racial preferences in hiring, and bilingual education.
Something of the same backlash may soon follow these demonstrations. There are over 300 million resident Americans, and the vast majority of them are citizens. Had the demonstrators marched chanting "God Bless America," confined their flag waving to Old Glory, and expressed thanks to a magnanimous United States that gave them a second chance when a corrupt Mexico has precluded their first, then they would have won public support.
As far as the immigration debate itself, we all know the truth that we suppress and the lies that we voice. Language has been the first casualty of our disingenuousness. "Illegal alien" is a descriptive, not a racist, term. In contrast, "undocumented worker" is deliberately misleading, since in most cases documents were never at issue, and not all aliens are workers. "Racism" has nothing to do with a failed system that appalls Asian- and African-Americans alike, as well as bewilders frustrated and patient Koreans, Punjabis, Africans, and Filipinos who did not cut ahead in the long legal immigration line. "Nativist" means nothing when Americans presently welcome in more legal immigrants that any other nation on earth.
Yes, illegal immigration provides a valuable source of cheap labor. But such jobs are not just those Americans will never take, but comprise work that they won't seek out at such cheap wages. Where compensation rises, citizen workers will follow.
Yes, most aliens work hard, but a small minority of them do not, and find themselves involved in criminal activity. And given the large pool of illegal immigrants from Mexico, that small minority can still reach several thousands — such as the nearly 15,000 aliens currently locked up in the California penal system alone, at a cost of a half-billion public dollars a year.
Yes, immigrants contribute more than receive but mostly when they are young, single, and male. As they age, become ill, marry, and have children, those without education, English, and legality naturally draw on entitlements for a semblance of parity with American citizens otherwise impossible for such minimum wage earners.
So what fails and what works? Bilingual education in our schools, multicultural romance about a mythical Aztlan in our universities, guest worker programs that institutionalize helot status, salad-bowl separatism, and millions who cross the border illegally, all have contributed to the present disaster. But as we see with second- and third-generation model Mexican-American citizens, English immersion, acceptance of an American identity, integration, intermarriage and assimilation, legal and monitored immigration in the thousands from Mexico — all that guarantees immigrants success and energizes us the host.
Americans recoil at the volatile ethnic enclaves in France and the Netherlands — and can understand how such tribalism could quickly escalate to sectarian violence in Iraq, the Balkans, and Rwanda. Unless we curb the present influx, return to the melting pot, and salvage a legal remedy from the present illegal disaster, what we saw this week may only be the beginning of something far more dangerous from both sides of this avoidable crisis.

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Progressive Era Lecture Outline

Progressive Era Lecture

Labor movement
Populist movement

Real change: Middle class
“Accurate” generalization?
Today: Outsourcing? Walmart?

Echo of ferment of reform? (1820s to 1860s)
Difference: Use of government as answer; massive expansion of national power
Review trend of national power

Technical term: T.R.’s Progressive party
Generally used in broader sense to describe reform movements of the late nineteenth/early twentieth century
Reclaim effective government for the common weal; reaction against gilded age corruption/social climate of the 1890s (Again, compare to ferment of reform)

State/Local government:
City governments (city manager model/city councils)
Good government: control corruption
Break power of party bosses (paternalism toward immigrants)
Primary selection of candidates
The governator

National government:
Regulation of “natural monopolies” (transport/utilities)
Microsoft a natural monopoly?
Ma Bell/Baby Bells?
Regulation of business excess w/o challenging capitalism
Progressive taxation:
Redistribution vs. concentration
Benefit of society argument
Women’s vote (suffrage achieved post WW I)
Direct election of Senators
Con review: FOM vs. FOT
Australian Ballot

Evangelical Protestantism
Walter Rauschenbusch
Reaction to Strong et al.
Christianity requires social justice
Distrust of immigrants
Hard to generalize: people are all over the map

Towering figures:
Jane Addams (forerunner)
John Dewey: Philosophy applied to democracy
Lincoln Steffans
Ida Tarbell
Jacob Riis
Upton Sinclair
Hiram Johnson
Fightin’ Bob LaFollette
Woodrow Wilson
Charles Evans Hughes
T.R. Biography as time allows

20/21 Test Format

I'm almost done with the test.

We are looking at about 30 questions for Amsco 21, 40 questions from Amsco 22, and 10 lecture questions.

So figure on around 80 questions.