31 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2020
    1. It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888.

      it happened again in 2016

  2. moodle.southwestern.edu moodle.southwestern.edu
    1. unbiased

      The Republican party will never stop claiming the media is bias, so I am surprised they are claiming they have resolved this issue. I would think they would want to keep acknowledging it as an issue.

  3. moodle.southwestern.edu moodle.southwestern.edu
    1. "The President has been regulating to death a free market economy" - it's interesting how much this preamble throws Trump under the bus

    2. "our enemies no longer fear us and our friends no long trust us" - I guess the democrats and republicans agree on this.

    3. "This platform is optimistic because the American people are optimistic." This is completely unsupported by everything stated before it.

    4. "covenant" "Creator" "God-given natural resources" "prepared to deal with evil in the world" show religious tone

    1. Friends and foes alike neither admire nor fear President Trump’s leadership

      I feel like there are countries who fear his leadership.

    2. The challenges before us—the worst public health crisis in a century, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the worst period of global upheaval in a generation, the urgent global crisis posed by climate change, the intolerable racial injustice that still stains the fabric of our nation—will test America’s character like never before.

      I know that we are making history but it doesn't exactly feel like it. The election feels like a joke. There is a stark difference between what came out of Roosevelt's mouth and either of the presidential candidates mouth's. Now it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils than a heroic leader to help our country achieve greatness.

    3. a more perfect union

      I feel like this goal has been abandoned.

  4. Sep 2020
    1. So how should we think about federalism in the ageof coronavirus? The answer is to emphasize theimportance of building social solidarity — the beliefin a shared fate for all Americans that transcendsstate or regional identities

      What makes Americans not have a social solidarity?

    2. institutional antagonism willprevent the concentration of power, encouragesindividualist mentalities that lead to self-interestedactions and erode national unity.

      What makes Americans so individualistic? What is different about Taiwan’s society that made their people more selfless?

    1. “We’re changing federalism from the idea of shared expertise in different policy areas into partisan stakes in the ground that are meant to obstruct opponents,” Robertson says.

      This is so true with the Trump Administrations "Alternative Facts" it is as though we will soon be living in the dystopian novel Brave New World.

    2. “The coronavirus response is actually sort of a perfect measuring stick of our transition to our contemporary, very polarized model of federalism.”

      I want to reference the Netflix documentary Social Dilemma. The documentary says that the reason politics has become so polarized is because of social media. Everyone is operating off of a different set of facts.

    3. He has threatened to withhold federal funds from school districts that don’t open for in-person instruction.

      Is it within Trump's right to do this?

    4. He has threatened to withhold federal funds from school districts that don’t open for in-person instruction.

      Is it within trump's rights to do this?

    1. It could create incentives for action by conditioning a portion of funds going to states in any future relief packages on states’ adherence to the measures

      Why did this not happen? I feel like it isn’t the federalist system in general that are failing us— it’s the leaders of the system. Why did congress not make a playbook and create incentives for states to follow them? This reminds me of how the drinking age became 21 in every state from the funding of the highways.

    2. Lacking strong federal leadership to guide a uniform response, the United States quickly fulfilled the World Health Organization’s prediction that it would become the new epicenter of Covid-19.

      I wonder if a democrat was in office when covid hit if we would have stronger federal leadership. Would we have been in a state of emergency if someone who believed in the facts of science wasn’t in office? I have trouble believing that there is nothing the president could have done to prevent covid from getting this out of hand.

    3. subject to constitutionally protected individual rights such as due process, equal protection, and freedom of travel and association

      I didn’t know that it is within our rights to travel and associate with whomever we choose. I wouldn’t think the government would be able to control who would be able to leave their house or hang out with who anyway. I guess this shows how right the article about uninformed citizens we read last week is right.

    4. Strong, decisive national action is therefore imperative.

      I could not agree with this statement more. I think if the US had some kind of national healthcare program the coronavirus would be much more under control.

  5. Apr 2018
    1. If you need more information contact the Documentation Centre on the Bombing of Gernika dokumentaziozentrua@gernika-lumo.net.

      Cannot help but include a comment on this email address. The email address does not directly relate to the institute, which is rather interesting. As our group commented on throughout the presentation and in our individual comments, the website does not seem to have been properly updated in quite some time. I am wondering if the museum has to utilize a different agency to handle the documentation on the website, or if they have not updated the website in so long and the email address is old.

    2. Acknowledgement of German involvement in the bombing of Gernika did not come until 1997, when President Herzog sent a letter to the survivors in which he admitted that Germany had been involved in the attack in 1937.

      Initially reading this portion, I was wondering why Germany waited until 1997 to formally acknowledge their role in the bombings: however, upon further analysis, this actually makes more sense. Until roughly 1990, Germany was still a divided nation wherein each half was controlled by opposing sides of the war. The government could not have formally acknowledged their role in the bombing until reunification occurred. Germany, like Spain, then began working on the process of reconciling with the past, meaning it had to acknowledge their past atrocities committed both within their borders and outside them as well. Unlike Spain, Germany has made a more fervent effort to deal with their past, such as this gesture with formally acknowledging their involvement in the bombing of Guernica. Of course, it is 60 years after the fact, yet it is a very symbolic act, showing the advancement of the two nations towards dealing with their pasts in a constructive way.

    3. Today Gernika is an advanced example of reconciliation; the process has not yet been completed, but the journey embarked upon is a long one. Initially it proved necessary to cover serious deficits, since Germany delayed the first steps to repair the damage caused.

      Now this particular line was rather interesting. Spain, obviously, has had quite a long journey of reconciling with its past, and has not made the most valiant efforts in doing so: however, this museum asserts that Guernica has been a prime example of the country's effort towards reconciliation. It is rather quick to blame the Germans for slowing down the process of reconciliation, almost saying that the efforts towards reconciliation could not occur until the Germans acknowledged their role in the bombing. Of course, the museum does blame Franco for never fully acknowledging his role in the bombing, but couldn't efforts have been made without outside assistance? Particularly after the death of Franco? It just seems rather odd that reconciliation couldn't happen until other people did something too.

    4. The atmosphere in Gernika before the war was tense for a long time. Franco introduced tough repression of both ideology and culture. There were new regulations and codes of conduct; people were reported to the authorities and searches were carried out on a daily basis, and nothing escaped scrupulous examination by the Civil Guard. The people of Gernika were forced to confront fear, distrust and mutual suspicion. Nobody gave them back the happy, open town they had once known.

      Of course, a museum emphasizing how tragic the bombing of Guernica was would make it clear that the aftermath of the bombing forever altered how the town operated. Analyzing the quote specifically, Franco instituted a real authoritarian state over the entire town, turning the townspeople against one another. It reminds me very much so of how the Nazis treated the German citizenry through using the Gestapo to instill fear and distrust. Studying how the Gestapo turned German people against one another, Franco and his regime did very much so the same thing. Paraphrasing from the website, people basically had no rights, their rights as citizens were routinely violated by the regime, which is something that the website emphasizes repeatedly.

    5. Reconstruction took five long years and, paradoxically, the person who was ultimately responsible for the destruction of Gernika, Francisco Franco, was made an adopted son of the town.

      Now this struck me as rather peculiar. When Guernica is finally rebuilt, the town names Francisco Franco an honorary son of the town. It does not entirely make sense, because Guernica was destroyed by Franco in the first place. Since Guernica was destroyed so early into the reign of the regime, I wonder if Guernica was forced to acknowledge Franco in such a way as a sign of creating a prosthetic memory, going back to Landsberg. Franco was manipulating the media at the time, so by having the town make him an honorary son, this could have been a way of Franco working to cover his tracks. Having the government create this new memory of what actually happened, that Franco was not involved, and instead helped rebuild the town through providing political prisoners, it puts Franco into a more caring light.

      Of course, this was all an act by the government, in an attempt to make themselves look better to the rest of the world. As time went on however, it became increasingly apparent that Franco was behind the bombing, yet what this website wants to emphasize that people from an outside perspective understood off the bat that Franco definitely played a role in the bombing.

    6. "The statement released by Salamanca according to which Guernica was destroyed by the reds is completely untrue.

      I do wish that the website could have included sources from German and other Fascist news outlets, concerning their initial response to the bombing. Of course more liberal outlets would've taken sided against Franco, ensuring that everyone knew that Franco was behind the bombings. To provide a more balanced view of the bombing, it would have behooved the website to include some sources from countries which supported Franco. This is a private museum however, so they are much so allowed to promote their own political agenda.

    7. Franco's army never acknowledged responsibility - on the contrary, evidence was twisted, and his press service accused the Basque republicans (referred to as reds and separatists) of having set fire to the town during their retreat towards Bilbao.

      Backing up of the previously made point that the Franco regime denies any involvement in having an outside MILITARY force bomb civilians, civilians who are not in any way connected to the countries utilized for the bombing. What this website does seem to make rather apparent is that the Franco regime truly did not care about its citizens, because those on the opposing side of Franco were not considered true citizens. Franco's reaction to the bombing, denying it, relates well back to the Aguilar piece about how the government struggled greatly with reparations to those on the "losing" side of the war, or just acknowledging mistreatment, period. Aguilar describes how the government took quite a long time to come to term with the issues of the past, so it shouldn't be too surprising that Franco reacted in such a way.

    8. The news was published in the main European organs thanks to the rapid action taken by a number of journalists, of which the best-known is George Steer.

      Interesting how the governments of the Euzkadi and Basque areas were the ones to break the news to the rest of the world instead of Franco's regime. This points to the Franco's regime repeated denial of wrongdoing on any front.

    9. "Before God and History, which will eventually judge us all, I hereby state that for three and a half hours German planes bombed the defenceless civilian population of Gernika with unprecedented viciousness. They reduced the town to ashes and machine-gunned women and children, many of whom were killed, while the rest fled in terror." Jose Antonio Aguirre. President of the Basque Government. "Aguirre is lying. We respected Gernika in the same way as we respect everything Spanish." Francisco Franco.

      The juxtaposition of the two statements represent the two dueling sides on the issue of the bombings. With the Basque country being rather against the Franco regime, Aguirre ardently came out stating Franco organized the bombings on Guernica. Of course, Franco comes out in full force against Aguirre and the Basque county, saying 'the reds did it to themselves'. Each side worked to promote their own side of the story, yet Aguirre received far more support from outside of Spain. Furthermore, it would behoove the museum to continually paint Franco in a poor light. Since this is a private museum, it will only show one side of the story. It could have benefited from showing both sides of the bombing.

  6. Mar 2016
    1. dimm'd


    2. Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

      Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

  7. Feb 2014
    1. Chapter 1, The Art of Community We begin the book with a bird’s-eye view of how communities function at a social science level. We cover the underlying nuts and bolts of how people form communities, what keeps them involved, and the basis and opportunities behind these interactions. Chapter 2, Planning Your Community Next we carve out and document a blueprint and strategy for your community and its future growth. Part of this strategy includes the target objectives and goals and how the community can be structured to achieve them. PREFACE xix Chapter 3, Communicating Clearly At the heart of community is communication, and great communicators can have a tremendously positive impact. Here we lay down the communications backbone and the best practices associated with using it

      Reading the first 3 chapters of AoC for discussion in #coasespenguin on 2013-02-11.