https://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/

it happened again in 2016

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.

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

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

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

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

I feel like there are countries who fear his leadership.

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.

I feel like this goal has been abandoned.

What makes Americans not have a social solidarity?

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

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.

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.

Is it within Trump's right to do this?

Is it within trump's rights to do this?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ipsum

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

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