Questions and Facts about Frontline: Top-secret America

Facts

• Congress gave the President a "blank check" to go after the terrorist group called Al Qaeda
• CIA had the first placed troops in Afghanistan
• When higher-up Al Qaeda members were capture the "disappeared" and ended up in "Black Sites" 
• John Rizzo authorized the construction of these "black sites" these were a part an international secret prison system that was helped by the cooperation of other countries
• The NSA was and is allowed to tap/ intercept phone calls and such even without a permit or warrant
• OSP- office of special plans had all the source information that was available to the us so they could pick up on terrorism within our borders
• NSA was shifted to counter-terrorism
• NSA spent billions on private companies so they could hire employees to digest huge amounts of data that came from an analyzer that could intercept all calls within the borders of America and call coming in to our borders
• As a Nation $80 billion has been spent on intelligence agencies
• When President Obama came into power he reauthorize all these intelligence agencies and operations

Questions

• Where is the funding for these operations coming from?
• When will we be able to shift back to a time where we do not have any of these kinds of agencies?
• Were there any agencies, like there are now, before 9/11?
• Since the Obama administration has there been any major changes to these agencies?
• How many people are involved, in total?
• Are these agencies international or just within our borders?
• As a country how should we react/ handle the fact that these agencies have the ability to break constitutional law?
• Have any other countries modeled their "anti-terrorist" operation off of ours?
• Was this video all based on fact?
• If asked what will government officials say to the fact that these agencies are breaking the 4th amendment?

"A People's History of the United States"

Wow! The view expressed in this excerpt from A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, was very interesting and different from the normal idea that the founding fathers were in it for the freedom of "the People". The way Zinn writes about both sides of the historical view of the creation of the constitution shows that the Founding Fathers had the "People" of America in mind while writing the constitution, but also could have possible been think more of their own benefits.

Zinn wrote about a historian, Charles Beard, whose view of the creation of the constitution differs from most. Beard thinks that the constitution was written to benefit the ones who wrote it, who happened to mainly be wealthy, landowners who had an economic background. Bread claims that the constitution is in direct economic interest with the one who wrote it. Beard noted that four groups of people who were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: women, slaves, indentured servants, men with out property.

Beard states that the constitution was not solely created for the benefits of the Founding Fathers, but expands to say that it was for the group that they represent. Beard also tell of representatives who met the wealthy, landowner requirement, but decided not to ratify the constitution, like Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin, who were both from small states.

The constitution also was a quick response to Shay's Rebellion which showed the discontent of the lower class. By the time the constitution was ratified the people of America were calling for a stronger more centralized government. Thomas Jefferson even thought that the rebellion was healthy and that every now and then it is a good thing. When looking back you could even say that Shay's Rebellion was a contributing factor to the creation of the constitution.

He tells of how Beard later on goes and tells that governments represent the dominant economic class and that they are not neutral.

Zinn even says that the bill of rights was just a cover up to get the peoples support, while underneath the wealthy and powerful were entrusted with the government. And that Congress goes against the first amendment when they pass a law, in 1798, that makes it a crime to write anything false, scandalous, and malicious, called the Sedition Act of 1798. Thus an example of congress breaking the first amendment, the right to free speech and idea.

Zinn ends the chapter with a talk on the opinions of Hamilton. Hamilton believes that the government should ally itself with the wealthy and rich element of society so that the government has backing to it. Hamilton even went as far as to propose a set of laws to congress expressing his philosophy. The last thing in the chapter is a quote from Bernard Bailyn questioning the true motives of the Founding Fathers and if the were in it for their own benefit or for the real people of America.

1. Is there any strong arguments pointing towards the Founding Fathers creating the constitution for the actual people of America?

2. Could Shay's rebellion be justified, if so how?

3. Were the amendments to the Constitution also in favor to the wealthy property owners, according to Beard?

Political Cartoon

What does this image represent? Why is it important?

Should higher taxes be force upon those with a higher income?

Why do you think that taxes on the rich have yet to be raised?

Chapter 1 20 Questions

Would the founding fathers agree or disagree with conservative extremists that think there should be no separation of church and state?

Why does the census not ask about religion?

Why did the government decide not to count slaves in the early censuses?

What was the reasoning for Mexicans to get their own category then become reabsorbed back in to the "whites" category?

Should the government of today change the official language laws so that it can accommodate the other languages spoken by Americans?

Did Thomas Jefferson think that only educated people should vote?

The book states that Americans are to diverse to share a common set of political views, then why do we have a two-party system?

How many of the American in 2000, who were over the age of 65, were retired?

Why does the book make it sound like identity politics are acceptable?

What would happen without political culture within the government, would it make it easier for congress to make decisions?

Most of the Founding Fathers were Deist, so would they include themselves in the part were the wanted Americans to have the same religion?

Why did the census researcher determine the ethnicity/ race of people instead of the people telling for themselves?

In 1990 the census was said to have four options for your race where was Hispanic/Latino put because it was said to be in the census too?

What is/was the point of collecting information about race? ( the Canadians don't do it so why do we?

Is it fair that the government ethnically singled out people, Mid-Eastern/ Arab peoples, just because the terrorist group Al-Qaeda was know to be in that area of the world?

Why didn't Bush retry to better relation with mexico after 9/11?

Why does no one in the Republican party think that it is horrible that the well-off, rich Republican members of Congress keep voting for raising taxes on the poor and tax cuts for the rich?

Did the government ever justify how the treat Mid-Eastern people more suspiciously after finding out the attack on the Twin Towers was organized by Al-Qaeda?

Did the author of the book honestly think that the economy was in a "stable" position at the time of this books creation?

Why did the government single out the 100,000 Mid-Easterners living in America illegally and dismiss the other 5 to 8 million people living here illegally?


 

Political Issues

Issues, we've got them. The political issues that concern me the most are military funding, taxes, and global warming.

The United State has spends $500-$700 billion per year on defense, in 2010 alone the total spending on the Department of Defense was over 12% of the total federal funding. So much money has been spent on the military and defenses instead of other places where it could have been more useful, like in the Department of Health and Human services or the Department of Education. The military funding of course creates jobs and protects the country, but does the most powerful country really need so much protection? While our country is lacking in education and not willing to spend more then necessary on it, we shovel money into defense like its a coal train with an engine problem. Once we start cutting the military spending then we will be able to both spend more on things like education, but also save and possibly reduce the debt even if by a small amount.

Taxes one of the smartest ideas since the sandwich! Taxes literally make a country, with out them both the government and the country would be nothing. So why does the government think that its such a great idea to tax the people with the least money instead of the people the ones with the most money? The amount of money they would gain would be almost the same either way so why not taxes those who can afford to lose the money instead of the people who are struggling as it is. I'mm not saying that the government should stop taxing the lower to middle classes but raise the bar for the mid-upper to upper classes. Also if the people of this country are so in debt then why can the government afford to pay 535 people $193,400 annually. Once the government starts heightening the taxes on the rich, maybe even on the middle class too, this issue will slowly start to sort itself out ... hopefully.

Finally global warming, yes it is real! (Michele Bachmann please leave) Global warming is a huge issue that everyone in the world faces, not in the US, but can be stopped (well slowed down). Global warming is apart of a cycle that takes 40,000 years to complete the problem we have is that the cycle is increasingly being speed up because of the toxic waste we put on the earth and in the atmosphere. The solution seem simple, but is not, the people of the earth have been using harmful but efficient means of energy and transportation for the past 150 years, so what will we use instead? This issue is commonly brought up, but so many politicians  blow it off because there are "more important matters", but if the depleting ozone layer goes to far the world wont be able to survive. More money and time should be spent on finding more efficient ways of getting energy and finding easier non-harmful ways of transportation.