The Gettysburg Address

Tuesday marks the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, which we discussed earlier in the semester. At The Los Angeles Times, Ronald C. White has an excellent article about it.  Read the whole thing, but here are some especially useful passages:

We don't know for certain when he wrote the speech, but we do know Lincoln continued to edit his address in the upstairs bedroom in [David] Wills' home, where he stayed the night before the dedication ceremony. He understood there is no such thing as good writing; there is only good rewriting.
...
Lincoln rose, adjusted his spectacles, and began: "Four score and seven years ago." The first two words rhyme, setting in motion a symphony of sounds. The biblical ring of his opening was rooted in lines from Psalm 90. Lincoln never mentioned the Bible, but the whole of his speech was suffused with both biblical content and cadence.
...

Lincoln, who always chose his words carefully, here selected words that conjured up the call to religious commitment he heard regularly in the preaching at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington.

At this point in his delivery, Lincoln made the only addition to the text he had written. He interjected "under God." Unlike words added extemporaneously in earlier speeches, which he often edited out before he allowed a speech to be published, Lincoln included "under God" in subsequent copies of the address.

Those words pointed toward the next phrase, "a new birth of freedom," with its layered political and religious meanings. Politically speaking, at Gettysburg he was no longer defending an old Union but proclaiming a new one.

... 

So what should writers and speechmakers see in the mirror 150 years later?

Readers of the essay question in the SAT exam lamented recently that as today's high school students struggle to write comprehensible English, they try to impress by resorting to big words.

Let Lincoln be their guide. He chose his words carefully. In his 272 words, 204 were sturdy one syllable words, the kind he so appreciated in the Bible and in Shakespeare.

Sexual Assault in the Military

As we lead into civil rights, the issue of sexual assault in the military is a very current issue. Civil rights are defined as "the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality." People should not have to live in fear, they should be adequately protected and represented by the law, and they should not be discriminated against or attacked in any manner. Sexual assault in the military is a problem that has been recognized, and the efforts to fix this problem are ongoing.

This video shows  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand discussing the issue in policy regarding the way sexual assault is reported and dealt with within the military. At this point in time, a member of the armed forces who is sexually assaulted must go through the chain of command to report the incident. Often times, a service member will not do so due to embarrassment, or lack of faith in responsive action. 

The drive to eliminate the need to go through chain of command is ongoing (see here) and is a pressing matter, as the statistics from indicate that roughly 26,000 service members report having been sexually assaulted (for article, see here)

"I don't think it's a question of being progressive or conservative. I think it's whether you're going to listen to what victims and survivors have told us about what's wrong with the system or not," Gillibrand said. "They say, 'I'm not reporting because I don't trust the chain of command.' If you do not listen to that and you do not believe it, then you will not look for this reform. So it's really just a question of whether you believe what the victims say is true."

Civil Rights and Disabilities

Although dated, an article by Harlan Hahn of USC addresses "crucial areas of agreement and disagreement about the "minority group model" (views prejudice and discrimination as the major issues confronting citizens with disabilities) both within and between disabled and non-disabled segments of the population, and to develop a case for the benefits that can be derived from policies founded on a socio-political understanding of disability." It provides an interesting discussion, especially that of the environment in which disabled persons have to live. Hahn asserts that the problems for disabled persons is composed not only of individual characteristics (health centered, personal limitations due to a disability), but also to external, environmental factors that stem directly from the perception of society and the regulations addressing the needs required by the disabled. What he describes as a "disabling environment" is created when the needs of those with disabilities are acknowledged, but not met. 

Nonetheless, many of the problems mention in the article, mostly those regarding architectural/building environments and the lack of aims to promote inclusivity, have made immense progress since the time it was written. The ADA (1990) and IDEA (2004) have made groundbreaking progress in establishing the foundation for equality for members of the American disabled community. Although, as a country, our laws do not completely remedy the issue that face the disabled, we are further on the path towards the ideal than arguably any other country. 

Bureaucracy and Public Policy

• DHS organization chart

Tocqueville on "The Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear"

It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, makes rules for their testaments, and divides their inheritances. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living?…It covers the whole of social life with a network of petty, complicated rules that are both minute and uniform, through which even men of the greatest originality and the most vigorous temperament cannot force their heads above the crowd. It does not break men’s will, but softens, bends, and guides it; it seldom enjoins, but often inhibits, action; it does not destroy anything, but prevents much being born; it is not at all tyrannical, but it hinders, restrains, enervates, stifles, and stultifies so much that in the end each nation is no more than a flock of timid and hardworking animals with the government as its shepherd.

• Regulation

The Citizen's Perspective

• Form 1040 and instructions
• A spaghetti chart
• Charts for Parents of ASD kids

Federalism

The Constitution and Federalism

• Article IV
• Article V
• Article VI
• 16th Amendment
• 17th Amendment
• 18th Amendment

The same-sex marriage cases:

• US v. Windsor (on DOMA)
• Hollingsworth v. Perry (on CA Prop 8 and the issue of standing)

The Federalist:

• Federalist 39: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."
• Federalist 45: "The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government."
• Federalist 46: "It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage."

Marijuana Federalism:

Stand Your Ground

I read in the news that two weeks ago, early Saturday morning, Renisha McBride, a 19 year old black woman, was shot in the head and killed. McBride, who was unarmed, was looking for help, as she had had a car accident in a neighborhood unfamiliar to her. The shooter claims to have felt threatened and that McBride did not call for help. The shooting took place in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, which is a state that has a stand-your-ground law. In general, a stand-your-ground law allows a person to use deadly force to protect himself in situations where he feels his life is in danger, and many states, including Florida where George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Michigan's law specifically states it is applicable if "the individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual" or in cases of possible sexual assault.

The stand-your-ground laws raise many issues to me. It is possible that the homeowner was truly scared for his life and thought McBride posed a serious threat, but at the same time, critics of these laws claim they call for unnecessary violence and warp the concept of self defense. Do these laws make a significant impact on crime, and do they actually make everyone safer or put some in more danger?

Elections and Campaigns

2012 Exit Poll, Continued

Message Box (pp. 29-30)

Archive of ads

Many sources on elections