Education is greatly related to federalism, especially NCLB. No Child Left Behind was signed and put into affect by George W. Bush on Janauary 8,2002. This program allows each state to set their own standards. These schools have to give tests to see each childs ability in math and english. The students are supposed to improve each year. The problem, only a certain amount of money is given to each state from the federal government, and each state is left up to itself to raise the rest of the money for their public schools. Not all states can raise this needed money, which causes problems in the public schools, and then the kids don't get the proper education, and then they don't meet the requirements and goals set by their state.
This issue is really controversial because many people believe that education isn't a federal issue. Some believe it's only a state and local issue, and that the federal government has stepped past their boundaries of power. It's also seen as an “unfunded mandate” between the state and federal government, and sets the teachers and kids up for failure from the start.
Specifically in New Orleans there has been more challenges because of Katrina. First of all, there aren't nearly as many students enrolled in the public or charter schools. Charter schools are more popular now because this was the states way to solve the problem of failing public schools. The federal government cannot just hand over more money to one state, Louisiana, because they need it. If they did, this would cause problems with other states that need the money as well. Now that charter schools are so common, another change was made: schools have school choice. This means that kids don't have to live in a certain area anymore to go to a public/charter school. They can go to whichever school, no matter where they live. This does cause some problems, because the charter schools are a little more selective, so the kids living across the street may not be able to make it in so has to find another school. There are many more problems that the Cowen video goes into as well.
The point in George W. Bushs' presidency that seemed like such a huge accomplishment has quickly gone downhill. The federal government has yet to fix many of the kinks in this system. Obama does have plans as to how to reform this system, but kids suffer every day from the lack of planning in the passing of this law 9 years ago.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
questions for eduaction
When did NCLB start?
Why was this started?
What is the state and federal relationship in this program?
Why is this program controversial?
Is this program actually helping students improve in math and english?
*i've started watching the Cowen Institute video on public schools in New Orleans which talks about before and after Katrina. the video is an hour and ten minutes long, and i've only watched about 11 mins of it. i wasn't exactly sure which report you wanted me read, but this video i think is the same as his report because they're both from Cowen's website
Why was this started?
What is the state and federal relationship in this program?
Why is this program controversial?
Is this program actually helping students improve in math and english?
*i've started watching the Cowen Institute video on public schools in New Orleans which talks about before and after Katrina. the video is an hour and ten minutes long, and i've only watched about 11 mins of it. i wasn't exactly sure which report you wanted me read, but this video i think is the same as his report because they're both from Cowen's website
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Why I chose this topic
My mom has been teaching in schools for awhile now, especially with younger kids for as long as I can remember. She's a speech therapist, so she isn't in front of a white board teaching kids but she still gets to know a lot of the kids with speech problems. When i was younger i used to go with her on a pretty consistent basis with her to her head start building. It wasn't in the best area, but this didn't stop my mom. When i went into my moms office, i sat and watched the younger kids play speech games and such. I caught onto some things in particular: they didn't have much respect for the teacher compared to what I was used to seeing, they didn't speak proper english, which was also how the teachers talked in class. These two points made me think how my school differed from theirs.
My mom now teaches at a differnet school on the westbank, which i haven't been to yet. But, my mom has told me a couple of things about it: her boss, the head of the school, cannot speak english correctly. This may be such a huge deal partly because my mom is a speech therapist, but in general this shouldn't be happening. The head of a school in a private setting would have to first of all be able to speak correctly, have experience, etc...The public school system has lowered their standards for the people they hire, which effects the young people they teach. Therefore kids who go to public schools are put on a lower level from the start, and have to work 10 times harder to be on the same level as a private school kid.
When i drive home from school, or driving to school, i always pass the John F Kennedy school in lakeview. This school was public before Katrina, and is now shut down and has grafitti written all over the building. Seeing this building makes me realize that our public schools in New Orleans aren't considered much at all, compared to the private schools. This wouldn't happen at a private school, and if it did consequences would be given. Just driving by this closed school, you can see the opportunities that could of been there, and the fact that people just don't care. The state obviously hasn't done anything about this school, and I feel that this school will remain like this for years and years.
My mom now teaches at a differnet school on the westbank, which i haven't been to yet. But, my mom has told me a couple of things about it: her boss, the head of the school, cannot speak english correctly. This may be such a huge deal partly because my mom is a speech therapist, but in general this shouldn't be happening. The head of a school in a private setting would have to first of all be able to speak correctly, have experience, etc...The public school system has lowered their standards for the people they hire, which effects the young people they teach. Therefore kids who go to public schools are put on a lower level from the start, and have to work 10 times harder to be on the same level as a private school kid.
When i drive home from school, or driving to school, i always pass the John F Kennedy school in lakeview. This school was public before Katrina, and is now shut down and has grafitti written all over the building. Seeing this building makes me realize that our public schools in New Orleans aren't considered much at all, compared to the private schools. This wouldn't happen at a private school, and if it did consequences would be given. Just driving by this closed school, you can see the opportunities that could of been there, and the fact that people just don't care. The state obviously hasn't done anything about this school, and I feel that this school will remain like this for years and years.
Monday, April 12, 2010
topic for project
Hey Mrs. T! I think that I want to do education in New Orleans, and specifically how public education differs from private. And why the public school systems are so bad here, compared to the public school systems in Texas or other areas of the U.S.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Town Meeting Response, 1968
From the town meeting, I have learned a number of things, and one of them is that Nixon didn't seem to have very good reasons for being in Vietnam, and he seemed to avoid a lot of questions about inequality. I know Leslie doesn't know exactly how Nixon acted in meetings, but she does know his beliefs and they reminded me of George W. Bush. He didnt seem quite sure what he was talking about in the way of why we are doing something, and seemed to avoid the hard facts.
Another thing about Nixon is that he didn't seem to want to acutally help the minorities. He wanted "law and order" but it doesn't sound very appealing. It only supports the upper, white elite class which consists of a few.
Bobby Seale had a good view on racism, and that blacks aren't given the equal chance to succeed, and Nixon didn't have a plan to help them. Nixon may not have been for the violence that errupted because of racism, but he didn't seem to feel that it was wrong that these people had been supresesd for so long, and weren't ever given a level playing field with the others. It was as if Nixon wasn't able to mesh with any of the other people in the town meeting. He believed if you worked hard, then you should have everything in life you deserve. What this failed to cover were the poor, blacks that word hard, low paying jobs, but don't get everything they deserve in life. This is where I believe Bobby Seale and Nixon differed the most.
Kennedy seemed very rational, and was more fair-minded than Nixon. Merrill made it very clear that Kennedy did care about the American people, and their best interest and equality mattered more than anything. He seemed to be able to compromise with more with people, compared to Nixon. And when you have to decide between these two kinds of candidates, you aren't going to want someone who won't listen to the people, including the minorities.
Our nation as a whole at this point in time was a wreck. There are so many minority groups that need equality, it seems impossible to find a starting point. The blacks, gays, women, and college students are all rebelling and protestng to get their country to change for the better. Our government is also a wreck. It seems to be silently crumbeling, and something needs to be done quickly. Whether it's pull out of Veitnam or not, something at home needs to change. All the voices that are screaming for attention need to be put onto paper and into action. Obviously, changes were made as the years passed, but at this point our government was lacking the quality leadership that could handle the mounting problems.
Another thing about Nixon is that he didn't seem to want to acutally help the minorities. He wanted "law and order" but it doesn't sound very appealing. It only supports the upper, white elite class which consists of a few.
Bobby Seale had a good view on racism, and that blacks aren't given the equal chance to succeed, and Nixon didn't have a plan to help them. Nixon may not have been for the violence that errupted because of racism, but he didn't seem to feel that it was wrong that these people had been supresesd for so long, and weren't ever given a level playing field with the others. It was as if Nixon wasn't able to mesh with any of the other people in the town meeting. He believed if you worked hard, then you should have everything in life you deserve. What this failed to cover were the poor, blacks that word hard, low paying jobs, but don't get everything they deserve in life. This is where I believe Bobby Seale and Nixon differed the most.
Kennedy seemed very rational, and was more fair-minded than Nixon. Merrill made it very clear that Kennedy did care about the American people, and their best interest and equality mattered more than anything. He seemed to be able to compromise with more with people, compared to Nixon. And when you have to decide between these two kinds of candidates, you aren't going to want someone who won't listen to the people, including the minorities.
Our nation as a whole at this point in time was a wreck. There are so many minority groups that need equality, it seems impossible to find a starting point. The blacks, gays, women, and college students are all rebelling and protestng to get their country to change for the better. Our government is also a wreck. It seems to be silently crumbeling, and something needs to be done quickly. Whether it's pull out of Veitnam or not, something at home needs to change. All the voices that are screaming for attention need to be put onto paper and into action. Obviously, changes were made as the years passed, but at this point our government was lacking the quality leadership that could handle the mounting problems.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Civil Rights Article
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/344937/gender_equality_in_the_united_states_pg2.html?cat=47
Gender Equality in the U.S.
The Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) obviously were major accomplishments in our nations history to creating a more equal society. Our country has moved forward, and made progress concerning this topic. But, the question of whether or not true equality has been accomplished yet in our society hangs over the heads of many.
Men and women have always had their differences, but placing one above the other crosses the line. Men have been known for thousands of years as the "head honcho" in the family, brings home the money, and is dominante over the woman. This image has been placed behind many, and women have started to take over some of these positions. Women have made progress in society, and have made a place for themselves. But, men are still favored over women.
More and more women have become educated, and the ratio of men to women eduacted has become more level. But, when applying for a job and recieving income the favoring begins. In 2000, a study between men and women that earned their bachelor's degree had a differnce in pay. Women receieved $35,408 and men recieved $49, 982. This is a huge gap in pay, and it was all based off of the persons gender. This example shows crystal clear that our society hasn't fully reached true equality.
Politics is another field that women lack representation in. A study was done betewen the U.S., Mexico, UK, and Sweden to compare statistics. In each place, women weren't represeted well in government, except for Sweden (45%). U.S. was 14%, UK was 18% and Mexico had 23% representation. In each of these places around the globe, the populations are made up of about 50% women, which shows how poorly we are represented. The U.S. has the lowest representation percentage, which concerns me. After passing the two bills in 1964 and 1965, we still have not reached true equality in our country. There are other factors that play into inequality, but I would think that by the 21st century the U.S. would be a leader in this area.
As a country we still need to work toward true equality if we want to be the best country, and believe through and through that we are the best country.
Gender Equality in the U.S.
The Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) obviously were major accomplishments in our nations history to creating a more equal society. Our country has moved forward, and made progress concerning this topic. But, the question of whether or not true equality has been accomplished yet in our society hangs over the heads of many.
Men and women have always had their differences, but placing one above the other crosses the line. Men have been known for thousands of years as the "head honcho" in the family, brings home the money, and is dominante over the woman. This image has been placed behind many, and women have started to take over some of these positions. Women have made progress in society, and have made a place for themselves. But, men are still favored over women.
More and more women have become educated, and the ratio of men to women eduacted has become more level. But, when applying for a job and recieving income the favoring begins. In 2000, a study between men and women that earned their bachelor's degree had a differnce in pay. Women receieved $35,408 and men recieved $49, 982. This is a huge gap in pay, and it was all based off of the persons gender. This example shows crystal clear that our society hasn't fully reached true equality.
Politics is another field that women lack representation in. A study was done betewen the U.S., Mexico, UK, and Sweden to compare statistics. In each place, women weren't represeted well in government, except for Sweden (45%). U.S. was 14%, UK was 18% and Mexico had 23% representation. In each of these places around the globe, the populations are made up of about 50% women, which shows how poorly we are represented. The U.S. has the lowest representation percentage, which concerns me. After passing the two bills in 1964 and 1965, we still have not reached true equality in our country. There are other factors that play into inequality, but I would think that by the 21st century the U.S. would be a leader in this area.
As a country we still need to work toward true equality if we want to be the best country, and believe through and through that we are the best country.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union blog
Dear President Obama,
After listening to your State of the Union address tonight, you have me truly convinced that the United States has picked an astonishing leader. The stories about young kids writing to you about their parents not being able to work got to core of me, but hearing how many Americans you have given jobs to today turned my sorrow into joy. Most importantly, you touched on the subject of the bipartisanship that has continiously been going on. But, you know that the American, "people deserve a government that embodies their strength." When you stated this it made me realize that every American counts, and as a whole we are known as a country that never backs down, no matter how hard the times may be.
You cut taxes for a total of 8 million Amercans: first time home buyers, small businesses, and Americans paying for college. This left people with more money to pay for gas, clothes, etc...Therefore this helped the whole cycle in general in improving the economy. This plan is very intelligent yet seems so simple, which a majority of Americans can grasp, and realize what a great president you are.
To get to the issue of the banks, and all the horrible things they have done, you turn a new light upon them. You told your plan of how you proposed a fee to the biggest banks, and big businesses will pay back their taxpayers that helped them when they were in a rut. As you said, these big businesses do have the money to pay their taxpayers back since they gave out large bonuses to their own workers. I agree completely with you, and the banks should learn once and for all that they don't control the economy, you do.
One last topic that I thought you spoke very strongly on was not to wait any longer. Washington has told us for years and years to wait for change, but we are not going to stand beside anymore. As you said, China isn't waiting, they are proceeding forward each day: "I don't accept second place for the U.S." I believe in you, I believe in the two parties as a whole, and I believe all Americans will work as one to become the greatest nation possible.
After listening to your State of the Union address tonight, you have me truly convinced that the United States has picked an astonishing leader. The stories about young kids writing to you about their parents not being able to work got to core of me, but hearing how many Americans you have given jobs to today turned my sorrow into joy. Most importantly, you touched on the subject of the bipartisanship that has continiously been going on. But, you know that the American, "people deserve a government that embodies their strength." When you stated this it made me realize that every American counts, and as a whole we are known as a country that never backs down, no matter how hard the times may be.
You cut taxes for a total of 8 million Amercans: first time home buyers, small businesses, and Americans paying for college. This left people with more money to pay for gas, clothes, etc...Therefore this helped the whole cycle in general in improving the economy. This plan is very intelligent yet seems so simple, which a majority of Americans can grasp, and realize what a great president you are.
To get to the issue of the banks, and all the horrible things they have done, you turn a new light upon them. You told your plan of how you proposed a fee to the biggest banks, and big businesses will pay back their taxpayers that helped them when they were in a rut. As you said, these big businesses do have the money to pay their taxpayers back since they gave out large bonuses to their own workers. I agree completely with you, and the banks should learn once and for all that they don't control the economy, you do.
One last topic that I thought you spoke very strongly on was not to wait any longer. Washington has told us for years and years to wait for change, but we are not going to stand beside anymore. As you said, China isn't waiting, they are proceeding forward each day: "I don't accept second place for the U.S." I believe in you, I believe in the two parties as a whole, and I believe all Americans will work as one to become the greatest nation possible.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Eisenhower and Kennedy on national policy
The two speeches do touch on similiar topics, and seem to take a similiar path. Eisnhower's speech didn't seem as inspiring, but did talk about some of the same ideas: "Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose." This statement is definently one that Kennedy agreees on, "Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations." Kennedy seems to lean towards the side of talking out the issues, but towards the end of the quote he seems to veer towards the side of war. He wants each nation to have the complete power to be able to destroy another nation if need be, and as a last resort.
Eisenhower talks about how he believes as a whole, our society needs to find a balance between the uprising industries and scientific findings with the smaller businesses in the world: "Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields." As Eisenhower says this, Kennedy does believe that there should be a balance, but he doesn't seem to have as negative a view: "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce." This quote compared to Eisenhower's quote seems to look at science in a differnet way. Kennedy seems to look at science as a way to discover the world and educate people, whereas Eisenhower believes it has taken over too much of American society and a balance is needed.
Kennedy really sticks to sorting out problems through disscussion and he seems to have a goal to help others: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." This quote is really strong in the sense that if the U.S. (being the free state) cannot help the thousands of poor people, then it cannot save the couple of people in society that are wealthy. It shows how we must be able to do both, not one or the other because that is not possible. This idea of helping others, and liberty runs through both speeches. In Eisenhower's speech: "our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations." As you can tell, both of these presidents kept the ideas of liberty and helping others as a part of their overall big goal.
Eisenhower talks about how he believes as a whole, our society needs to find a balance between the uprising industries and scientific findings with the smaller businesses in the world: "Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields." As Eisenhower says this, Kennedy does believe that there should be a balance, but he doesn't seem to have as negative a view: "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce." This quote compared to Eisenhower's quote seems to look at science in a differnet way. Kennedy seems to look at science as a way to discover the world and educate people, whereas Eisenhower believes it has taken over too much of American society and a balance is needed.
Kennedy really sticks to sorting out problems through disscussion and he seems to have a goal to help others: "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." This quote is really strong in the sense that if the U.S. (being the free state) cannot help the thousands of poor people, then it cannot save the couple of people in society that are wealthy. It shows how we must be able to do both, not one or the other because that is not possible. This idea of helping others, and liberty runs through both speeches. In Eisenhower's speech: "our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations." As you can tell, both of these presidents kept the ideas of liberty and helping others as a part of their overall big goal.
Monday, January 18, 2010
1950's Ad
Eisenhower vs. Stevenson:
Ike for President: In this add the music was really upbeat and happy, and made it appealing to a number of Americans. In the Ad there's a part where a variety of men and women walk across the screen. They are all holding signs that say "IKE" but the most important part is that the men and women were all differnet. Some were factory workers, fire fighters, stay at home moms, and painters. There's also a shot of just a man on a tractor which shows how agriculture is important in American society. The tractor is also representing industry because it shows how Eisenhower wants it to become a large part of the economy. There's an image of a family with a young child and a dog, and it's the "picture perfect" family. This ad shows how business and family are a large part of the American vision. And just how Uncle Sam motivated people to join the army for WWI, he is used in this ad to show his support for Eisnhower. This tactic can persuade peopele to vote for him if he has Uncle Sam on his "side." The other candidates running in this election are represnted as donkeys which are Democractic, but also they portray them as kind of dumb. They make the donkeys look a little funny, by giving them big ears and large bodies. This portrail makes these other candidates not seem as serious, compared to the picture showed for Eisenhower in the ad. This ad overall shows how our nation during this time is focused on their economy and jobs, which soon ends up booming more than ever.
Let's Not Forget The Farmer: This ad refers to all the farmers in the U.S. and dates it back to the 30's (the Depression). The ad makes sure to get across that the depression will not occur again, they use the line "didn't have bread when the day was done." This line is said while a foreclosure sign is shown and a family is standing there looking homeless. Then the song changes to Stevenson and there are images of a nice farm house, and him smiling in his car. These images show how if you vote for Stevenson and you're a farmer, you will not be forgotten. You won't go through the same hardships that you previously went through. This ad shows how agriculture is once again important in American economy. This is similiar to the ad that I talked about in the paragraph above, where agriculture was important too. Agriculture obviously is going to be a huge focus during the 1950's.
Nixon on Corruption: this ad shows Nixon talking on a stand, and he's talking about how he has served for the federal government before. And how he respects the thousands of people that serve the federal government. He believes that to pay back all the hard working Americans, the corrupt people and thiefs in these positions be kicked out. Previously, too many people were given political offices because they were friends with the president, and the positions were then abused. Nixon makes it clear that he wants only good hearted people in office, and wants people who will work hard for the good of the country. He also doesn't want Washington D.C. to have a bad reputation. It's supposed to be a place of trust, honsety and have reliable people that work hard. Therefore he's showing that him and Eisenhower are a good choice because they aren't crooks, nor are they corrupt. This shows how the nation wants to take a new direction on government, and ensure that people are rightly deserved thier positions. No more big business scandals where the government barely has control over the economy. This is a very big step that was needed sooner or later.
Ike for President: In this add the music was really upbeat and happy, and made it appealing to a number of Americans. In the Ad there's a part where a variety of men and women walk across the screen. They are all holding signs that say "IKE" but the most important part is that the men and women were all differnet. Some were factory workers, fire fighters, stay at home moms, and painters. There's also a shot of just a man on a tractor which shows how agriculture is important in American society. The tractor is also representing industry because it shows how Eisenhower wants it to become a large part of the economy. There's an image of a family with a young child and a dog, and it's the "picture perfect" family. This ad shows how business and family are a large part of the American vision. And just how Uncle Sam motivated people to join the army for WWI, he is used in this ad to show his support for Eisnhower. This tactic can persuade peopele to vote for him if he has Uncle Sam on his "side." The other candidates running in this election are represnted as donkeys which are Democractic, but also they portray them as kind of dumb. They make the donkeys look a little funny, by giving them big ears and large bodies. This portrail makes these other candidates not seem as serious, compared to the picture showed for Eisenhower in the ad. This ad overall shows how our nation during this time is focused on their economy and jobs, which soon ends up booming more than ever.
Let's Not Forget The Farmer: This ad refers to all the farmers in the U.S. and dates it back to the 30's (the Depression). The ad makes sure to get across that the depression will not occur again, they use the line "didn't have bread when the day was done." This line is said while a foreclosure sign is shown and a family is standing there looking homeless. Then the song changes to Stevenson and there are images of a nice farm house, and him smiling in his car. These images show how if you vote for Stevenson and you're a farmer, you will not be forgotten. You won't go through the same hardships that you previously went through. This ad shows how agriculture is once again important in American economy. This is similiar to the ad that I talked about in the paragraph above, where agriculture was important too. Agriculture obviously is going to be a huge focus during the 1950's.
Nixon on Corruption: this ad shows Nixon talking on a stand, and he's talking about how he has served for the federal government before. And how he respects the thousands of people that serve the federal government. He believes that to pay back all the hard working Americans, the corrupt people and thiefs in these positions be kicked out. Previously, too many people were given political offices because they were friends with the president, and the positions were then abused. Nixon makes it clear that he wants only good hearted people in office, and wants people who will work hard for the good of the country. He also doesn't want Washington D.C. to have a bad reputation. It's supposed to be a place of trust, honsety and have reliable people that work hard. Therefore he's showing that him and Eisenhower are a good choice because they aren't crooks, nor are they corrupt. This shows how the nation wants to take a new direction on government, and ensure that people are rightly deserved thier positions. No more big business scandals where the government barely has control over the economy. This is a very big step that was needed sooner or later.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Documents on the cold war
Truman Doctrine: this document shows how the U.S. knows that it needs to help Greece to repair thier country. Greece has been destroyed politically and economically, and has turned to the U.S. in dire need. The U.S. does bloat a little about how much we have, and how we have the right way of life and must help others (manifest destiny), but at least the U.S. has the heart to help Greece get back on its feet. The U.S. also helps Turkey, as Great Britain no longer can support them. Two years before this document (1945) the United Nations was created, so that a situation like WWII wouldn't occur again.
Even though the U.S. is doing a good thing (helping these two nations) it is also tieing us to them. This document shows the U.S. policy for the future war (cold war).
Kennan's Long's Telegram: this document shows how Long's view of capitalism isn't very positive but he believes it is better suited for a country rather than communism. He state the USSR against capitalism, but brings to light that there are indeed internal problems with capitalism. Through all this, he believes that someone must intervene the USSR before they spread their beliefs and government ways to other countries. Long's telegraph continues, and he states that action must be taken but not military action. He believes the USSR should be resisted and will full force, and they will quickly back down. He also beleives the American people should be educated about the nature of their government, and the actions that the U.S. will take. This document shows the U.S. resistance against the USSR and how there are people already strongly agaisnt them. Therefore, this builds up tension between the two nations, and he states in his telegraph that the west (being the U.S.) is more powerful than the USSR which foreshadows the Cold War.
Even though the U.S. is doing a good thing (helping these two nations) it is also tieing us to them. This document shows the U.S. policy for the future war (cold war).
Kennan's Long's Telegram: this document shows how Long's view of capitalism isn't very positive but he believes it is better suited for a country rather than communism. He state the USSR against capitalism, but brings to light that there are indeed internal problems with capitalism. Through all this, he believes that someone must intervene the USSR before they spread their beliefs and government ways to other countries. Long's telegraph continues, and he states that action must be taken but not military action. He believes the USSR should be resisted and will full force, and they will quickly back down. He also beleives the American people should be educated about the nature of their government, and the actions that the U.S. will take. This document shows the U.S. resistance against the USSR and how there are people already strongly agaisnt them. Therefore, this builds up tension between the two nations, and he states in his telegraph that the west (being the U.S.) is more powerful than the USSR which foreshadows the Cold War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)