56 thoughts on “Blog #14 – Kids Taking Over – Part 3”

1. Fred Ayres March 11, 2011 at 6:27 pm

   12. The Treaty of Versailles was not at all fair to the Germans. As the old saying goes ‘The victor writes the history books’. During World War I, propaganda portrayed the Germans as these evil, maniacal people that would wipe all liberty off the face of the planet if given the chance. The Germans, for the most part, were like us. They have colonies overseas and had an awesome industrial program. But the Zimmerman Note was revealed and unrestricted submarine warfare took hold, all hell broke loose.

   Because the Germans were so evil and devious, the French called for their total annihilation. They went on to say that we only knocked down the German lion; they would get back up. But perhaps they got back up because they were shoved down so forcefully. If they’d been knocked down in a friendly manner, perhaps they would reluctant to stand back up in the same fashion.
   President Woodrow Wilson was the arbitrator of peace during the discussions over the Treaty of Versailles. Sadly, Wilson had to please the French and British, whom the Germans brutally assaulted during World War I. By doing so, Wilson got rid of many of his Fourteen Points, which the Germans agreed with. Faced with no choice, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty.

   Adolf Hitler. Remember him? Numerous scholars and historians speculate that the Treaty of Versailles and the way the Germans were obligated to sign it were the main causes of the rise of the Nazis. If we had simply made the Germans our allies and forgot about pleasing those who were already our allies, the Second World War might have been avoidable.

   I would have ensured that the Germans shared part of the blame for the war and that they faced the regular sentence. Instead of being barraged with insane reparations, they would pay small fees in exchange for peaceful relations. If only more people would see that peace is the answer.
2. raven goodwin March 11, 2011 at 9:31 pm

   #5
   If I were a woman living during the World War 1, I would be against the war because I feel that the war was pointless in the beginning. I think war in general is a waste of time and money. If we didn’t have a war in the first place then we wouldn’t have been in the depression, or we wouldn’t have lost the people that we cared about most. I would be willing to work in the war as a nurse because, I wouldn’t have anything to do being at home and working in the factories that could eventually kill, not saying that the infections from the soldiers that were in the war, but it would have been different because I would be a nurse and know how to treat myself and the others that aren’t able to take care of themselves. Also in the future I would like to be in the medical field because I like to take care of people that need my assistance, I don’t know exactly what part of the medical field but surgery would work because I would be sewing people’s body parts back together. So it would all work. If I were to stay at home and work in the factories or a similar job, I would feel like the rest of the people that didn’t do anything with their life, but do their husbands jobs. It would be hard for me to think and wonder what life would be like without the thrill of being with soldiers that needed my help. Therefore I think the best decision for me is to live life to the fullest and not be like everyone else, be an individual, or someone who wants to see a different scenery, than I would do if the soldiers were here.
3. Lucy Bolerjack March 12, 2011 at 11:47 am

   12. The Treaty of Versailles was not fair to the Germans. Britain, France and the U.S. took the opportunity to make Germany regret WWI through the Treaty, but did not consider Germany’s view, or the effect the Treaty would have. The Treaty stated that Germany had to admit to being the sole cause of World War I; but, Germans resented this, saying it was a lie and an offense against Germany’s honor. Then, the Treaty demanded Germany pay reparations of about 130 billion Reichsmarks (about 442 billion USD today) to certain countries. Although the German’s tried to pay this back, post-war inflation prevented them from doing so, and also had detrimental effects on the country. On top of that, the Treaty demanded specific military limitations: a limit on weapons productions, the prohibition of raising an army, the prohibition of enforcing a blockade, restrictions on manufacturing machine guns, armed aircraft, tanks and armored cars, and a limit to how many ships the German naval force could have (no submarines this time). Germans were rightfully offended and resentful towards other countries deciding how Germany was to be governed. Before and during World War I, Germany established territories and colonies all over the world—only to be forced to give them up after the war. The worst part of the Treaty was that the Germans were not allowed to participate in the negotiations—the terms were handed to them to be accepted as is. I would have included Germany in the negations, and lowered reparations demanded. If we had included the Germans, it is possible that they would have been more open to agreement, and less resentful. Lowering the reparations wouldn’t have prevented the post-war inflation in Germany, but it would’ve made it easier to recover from it. Lastly, if we didn’t force them to accept that the entire war was their fault they wouldn’t have felt so offended and humiliated; and, they wouldn’t have wanted revenge against the allies. The Allies humiliated Germany, and tried to control Germany through the Treaty, and it was not fair to the Germans.
4. Philip Johnson March 12, 2011 at 12:22 pm

   4. If I were one of the characters in the jungle and had to work in one of those disgusting meat factories, the job that I would most likely like to have would be the director/ manager of all of the other employees and workers in the factories. I believe that this would be a good job because it is more of a career than just being one of the labor workers who do everything according to what their managers tell them to do. This would also help me avoid the nasty job of coming into contact with the meat and in the long run it could help me avoid a lot of those hot, foul, repulsive conditions that most of the labor workers at the factory were enduring. I could possibly get a nice, clean office away from all of the chaos. In addition to this, if I were the manager of the factory, I would most likely have a more hefty income than a majority of the workers at the factory with lower positions.
   One position that I would definitely never do in any of these unsanitary meat factories is work on the line of people who actually have to prepare the meat and come into contact with it. If I had this job, I feel like I would be risking my life because many of the laborers who were in positions like this got fatal illnesses as we read in the jungle. I would rather not have a job than work in those nasty rat-infested factories as a meat-preparer. I also wouldn’t like this job because the wage of most laborers of that time was very low so I would be poor, but I wouldn’t want to do that because I would need enough money to not only support my family, but also to enjoy the nicer things in life that cost more money.
5. Jenny Richter March 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

   7. If enough people chose to not drive their cars, this would probably lower gas prices a small amount. And those people who chose to ride their bikes wouldn’t be spending any money on gas at all. However, not everyone is able to take their bikes everywhere. This distance to your destination may be too far, there might not be any sidewalks, it may be too cold outside, or there could be something else unsafe or unsuitable about the places you would have to bike through. Bikes can’t solve everything; however they certainly are a great idea for those who are able to. Who doesn’t love that great biker’s tan?
   For those who aren’t able to bike, carpooling is an easy way to save a little money on gas. It’s not going to make much of a dent overall though. If public transportation is available, that’s a better choice because it’s like a massive carpool with strangers! You won’t be paying for gas, car maintenance, or car payments if you don’t own one yet. But if you live in the suburbs this isn’t really available. And if you live in the country, then just forget it.
   The only other option is to continue developing vehicles that don’t run on gasoline, but on electricity. People wouldn’t have to spend any money at all on gasoline, and because of the smaller amount of car parts, maintenance would be a great deal less. They also produce no carbon dioxide from the tailpipe, which would decrease the quantities of greenhouse gases being produced. However, these cars are still expensive and replacing the batteries in them costs a lot too (about $12,000 every seven years). The batteries on average only hold 40 miles worth of charge at one time. If we could continue developing new technologies similar to these we could decrease our dependency on gasoline, and then we wouldn’t have to worry about the cost of it at all. We’re still a long way off from completing this though, so in the meantime people will have to just deal with high gas prices or pull out the ol’ bicycle and put the foot to the pedal instead of the pedal to the metal.
6. Allison Roche March 12, 2011 at 5:48 pm

   I think that the School House Rock videos were pretty accurate in their portrayal of the events during the Women’s Suffrage Movement. However I think they didn’t accurately portray the people. In the video we watched during class they showed a women suffrage activist voting for a president that tossed the issue of women’s voting on to the states. That is unrealistic and therefore doesn’t portray the character accurately. I don’t the School House Rock videos would be a good addition to school curriculum. For staters you can hardly understand what the characters are saying. In order to understand any of it you need to watch it multiple times and try to decode the lyrics for facts. I think everyone would agree, students and teachers, that they would rather read a text book to learn the facts instead of trying to watch the School House Rock videos. Even if you could understand the characters the videos are simply to distracting to have any real educational value. If you see a girl with weird brown hair in a blue crop top with a star on with red bell bottoms and white go-go boots dancing around about women’s suffrage I know that women’s suffrage is going to be one of the last things on my mind. I’m going to be thinking of why she looks so funny and what her creators where thinking when they drew her. Maybe if the videos were less distracting, you could understand what the characters were saying and the videos portrayed the characters accurately they would be an okay addition to school curriculum. The videos are entertaining and if you listen carefully you may learn a smidgen but that is at best. They would be alright for a Friday when the class isn’t in the mood to learn about anything and just wants to sleep.
7. Brittany Kashat March 12, 2011 at 6:57 pm

   1. The School House Rock video, “Sufferin’ Till Suffrage” explained a little bit about the suffrage movement, but didn’t talk about a lot of what happened. Everything the video said was accurate, but there just wasn’t a lot of information. The video showed a picture of a group of women with a banner that said, “We were voters out west! Why deny our rights in the east?” The cartoon girl says how it was our job to do the house work, cook the turkey, and wash the dishes, but couldn’t vote. When women tried to vote, they were jailed. It explains that women were “sufferin’ till suffrage”, but the 19th Amendment changed the rule that women couldn’t vote. It also says that the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. The girl says that now we’re able to vote, we can improve our country, state, county, town, and school. It also talks about how Susan B. Anthony, Julia Howe, and Lucretia Mott protested until the law was passed. It barely talks about the opposition to suffrage. It definitely should’ve at least mentioned the National American Women Suffrage Association and the National Women’s Party and the tactics of each. It’s understandable that the video didn’t talk about everything that happened during suffrage, otherwise it would’ve been a really long video. Since these videos were aimed at children, they had to be short to keep the kids’ attention. I think that School House Rock videos should be included in school curriculum because while they do supply information about certain topics, they shouldn’t be heavily relied on. I think that showing the videos at the end of related units will reinforce everything that was taught in a fun and entertaining way. The upside is that they don’t take away much class time. The majority are only about 3 minutes long.
8. Eli Sherman March 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm

   7. The reason for the high gas prices lately is the complete instability of the middle east. Huge oil suppliers like Egypt and Libya have started to realize how tyrannical their leaders are and have begun to revolt. Since this means oil will be harder to get to (a revolution could cause oil from these countries to be completely inaccessable) oil companies are raising the prices of fuel so that they can earn money while they still have the commodity to sell. Additionally, the world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, seems to be on the brink of collapse just the same as its neighbors. The best way to attempt to reduce gas prices, or at least keep them stable and static, would not be to stop driving. That could be detrimental to the economy in the long term (less driving means that people dont travel as far to get goods and eventually stop buying that good and therefore less money is pumped into the economy by the people). Instead, the United States government should do everything in its power to prevent countries that haven’t yet undergone change (Libya and Saudi Arabia etc.) from having extreme revolutions where significant changes would occur with regards to oil production and the way those economies are run. In the case of Libya the U.S. can invade and take out Gadaffi. They would then install a responsible leader who does not kill his own people. This would have a significant effect on stopping price hikes on gasoline.
   An additional way to stop price hikes is to permit more oil drilling in the U.S. (in places like the gulf, and Alaska). Also, the U.S. could look into the production of oil from sources like coal and shale. The more ways we have to acquire oil, the lower the prices will be because we will not be forced to import it from other countries.
9. Molly Sovran March 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm

   Molly Sovran
   Question number 9

   1. Honestly, I don’t think there was any way that president Wilson could have avoided war. During his election, his campaign managers knew inside that the slogan “He kept us out of war” wouldn’t be such a true statement because even he knew that America would soon have to enter the war. With the “help” of Germany, this would come true. With the submarine warfare and Germans U boats, and the publication of the Zimmerman note, American was obligated to go into war. The Zimmerman note stated that If Germany won the war and if Mexico will attack America, then they would receive Texas, New Mexico etc. With all the fear of Mexico and Germany, America could no longer stay away from war. Although, many didn’t want it, due to the Espoinage Act and the Sedition acts they weren’t allowed to say, print etc anything about the war or Americas involvement in it. Personally I feel that it was the best decision to go to world war one because America could have been in much worse turmoil if they didn’t. Mexico could have attacked, and the fight between Germany with the submarine warfare could have gotten much worse and more and more American lives could have been gone. Not entering could have avoided all the problems within America, but it would not avoid the external problems with Germany. When it becomes a world war, it’s almost impossible to stay out of it if you’re a dominant world power. One side of the war is going to need you help, and the other might do horrible things to you because you chose the other side. It becomes inevitable to enter the war. There are always some people that are definitely not pro war, but you cant please everyone. You have to make the decision to figure out what’s right for the country, and that’s what Wilson was doing. Trying to make the best decision to keep America safe from future harm.
10. braxton March 13, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Blog #14
    Braxton Allred
    3/13/11
    Wickersham 3rd hr
    To answer Mallory’s question, I believe that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will change the way that civil wars and conflicts are fought in the future. But I don’t think that only social networking sights will affect this, I believe technology as a whole will change how countries handle things. As Mallory stated in her question, people have used these websites to communicate events not only to other people of the same country, but to the international world. This really takes away a significant amount of power from the leaders because there’s a possibility that his or her actions can be seen and judged by the world. If his actions don’t please some countries, this could cause another country to interfere (like the US seems to always do) and cause an international conflict. We have seen this in Egypt, and in the Middle -East (teenagers were recording videos about the violence there on their phones and emailing them to CNN and posting them on Facebook). I can’t believe that a leader wouldn’t be worried about the way he treats his people with all these possibilities open; the leader would have to be a fool to not consider the technological abilities that many people have. Citizens of these oppressed countries will be able to use this fear as a weapon against the government and this could cause a drop in oppressed people’s and government. For example, if a leader didn’t have to worry about these issues and a rebellion popped up, he or she could just try to end it through violent and possibly cruel means, and not have anyone know. But with the advances in technology, if a leader were to attempt this, the citizens could just take pictures or videos of the incidents, communicate it internationally and expose their leaders as a tyrant, possibly causing change in government.
11. Emily Kakos March 13, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Question 7
    Gas prices have been a huge issue in Michigan. It’s predicted that the only way they are going is up in the next couple of months! In some states, the prices have raised to five dollars for one gallon! When researching what can be done to lower gas prices, I came across some hilarious and totally useless information that literally made me laugh out loud. First some legit stuff though. There are some whispers of a Hydrogen Car. Popular talk show host and secret environmentalist Jay Leno is now driving a BMW Hydrogen 7. This car runs on liquid hydrogen fuel instead of compressed hydrogen as is typical for fuel cell vehicles. Sadly, the Hydrogen car’s top speed is electronically limited to 143 mph. As of right now, liquid hydrogen fueling stations are stationed in Washington D.C. and Oxnard, California. It looks like we’re out of luck here in Michigan. So here comes the second option for being more fuel efficient. This one is so obvious, I’m surprised people are still having this fuel efficient problem. Carpool. I know it’s a crazy idea isn’t it? Why would anyone try to get to their destination with other people who are going to the same place, rather than going separately, using four or five different cars?!?! That was sarcasm in case you missed it. If we all carpooled a little more, to work and school, then it wouldn’t matter that the gas prices are this high, because the car will be used even less! Also, Michigan is obese. It’s been among the ten heaviest states for the past 14 years and was ranked the third worst among the states for the rate of obesity in 2004. I don’t care if you think you’re skinny, you can do to lose some weight. I agree with the riding bike thing. Not only is it great for your health, think of how it will motivate all your lazy, fat coworkers to see you riding in on your bike while they took their car. Also, if it’s not too far, walking is an excellent way to exercise and get to wherever it is your going. The funny thing about walking and riding your bike and just exercising in general is that it warms you up! So complaining about this “cold Michigan weather” is just an excuse as far as I’m concerned. The point is, once you start going, you’ll get hot as hell and the cold air around you will be a refreshing relief. \
    Now we can get to the hilarious and useless information that I found. Some idiots decided to invent ways for cars to run effectively and on less gas and some even BIGGER idiots decided to buy these useless products from the first set of idiots. Hurray for the entrepreneurs of America. For $20 on eBay you can buy an Intake Twister and Tornado Fuel Saver. This device is supposed to whip the air into a mini-tornado, which is supposed to mix up the fuel more thoroughly so you can get a better burn. Depending on which one you use you’ll either get nothing or a 20% decrease in your fuel efficiency. Obviously, engines are already designed to take the most advantage of fuel and this useless piece of crap can be made with a soda can. Didn’t that make you laugh? I sure did. Another way to be cheated out of about 200 bucks is to buy the Water4gas kit. This kit supposedly converts just one gallon of water into “1,883 gallons of combustible gas!!!” This is not the same as the hydrogen car, just so you know. The hydrogen car requires a HUGE amount of electricity from power plants to produce the hydrogen. To do what the Water4gas is claiming, you’d need a car battery so powerful that you could run you’re whole car off it anyway. Luckily, this is basically harmless if you actually put it in your car. Besides being in the hole a couple Benjamin’s you won’t have any real damage to your car and it won’t do anything to your car either. It’s a good thing to, because if it actually did do what it says it does, and creates a highly combustible gas, you would definitely NOT want to put that into your engine without modifying your whole car. You would probably explode.
    Anyway, this was pretty fun to look up, and I have no idea why I wrote this much, but basically I think that the answer to making driving affordable is carpooling and exercise. But maybe we’ll all end up with BMW Hydrogen cars and this whole gas thing just won’t matter anymore.
12. Kaylee Brown March 13, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I think that social networking sites such as facebook, myspace, and twitter could definitely help countries like Egypt to overthrow government because they could get mass amounts of people in on their plan. With many people involved it’s easier to overthrow a government because there is only so much a few individual people can do against a thousand plus people. I definitely think that these social networking sites would HELP to do this but I think many people use the networks just for fun and to stay in contact with friends and meet new people. With this in mind, I really think that if a government is as messed up as Egypts, and people are hating on it so much, it will get overthrown no matter what. Nothing can really stop something like that. Clearly, mass amounts of people weren’t happy with the government, otherwise they wouldnt have joined the facebook group but I think someone would have found alternate ways to communicate to everyone had facebook not been an option.
    I think that oppresive leaders will definitely try to treat the people of their country better because they would want to maintain their power and leave honorably rather than be overthrown or worse assassinated. I think every GREAT (excluding all irrational leaders) political leaders fear is not pleasing their people and all they really want to do is make their country a better place and by doing that they need the help of their people so they would try to please them rather than offend them and make them want to overthrow their government, like in Egypt.
    Ultimately I think that social networking websites have the ability to change the way we fight civil wars in the future but won’t neccessarily prevent a war. If something is wrong people are going to seek a solution, no matter what. Social networking can only make it progress faster.
13. Alex Cooper March 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    4. If I had the choice, I would not want to work at an unsanitary, old meat factory, like the ones described in The Jungle. But, if I absolutely had to have a job at one of the factories, I would want to be either the manager, or owner. The job wouldn’t make me have to deal with any of the meat, and the conditions wouldn’t be as bad. I assume that I wouldn’t have to work in a factory room, but instead, I would get to work in a room like an office. I wouldn’t have to suffer the bad conditions that the workers at the assembly line go through, such as unbearable heat, or shockingly cold rooms, dirt, rats and all surrounded by dead animals. If I had that job, I would have more power over everyone else working at the assembly line, and I would probably be making more money than they would have been making, which in turn would result in a better life for me and my family. I would have a career with opportunities to grow in the business career, instead of growing career wise in the factories. The job that I would not do under any circumstances is any of the jobs that involve touching or packaging animal meat. Being a vegetarian, I already don’t enjoy eating meat because of the reason that it means taking away an animal’s life to do so, so working with packaging the raw meat would be even worse. The conditions in the factories were brutal, and you don’t even get anything decent in return! You don’t make that much money and you are risking your lives every day. The money that you are making in ratio to the chances that you could catch an illness with the working conditions, isn’t a very good one. It doesn’t make sense to try and make money to support yourself and your family so that you all can stay healthy, while you might be increasing your chances of getting an illness. It would be disgusting to work there and I wouldn’t want to do it.
14. Rachel Goldstein March 13, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    17. If Teddy Roosevelt had been president when World War One started in 1914, the United States would have gotten involved before the sinking of the Lusitania and the discovery of the Zimmerman Note. Roosevelt loved a good fight and getting involved in other country’s business. He would have found the chance to fight against such a perfect adversary as the Germans and their u-boats irresistible and the war would help his reputation. I think that the war wouldn’t have lasted as long if Roosevelt had been president. The peace negotiations would have been very different. Roosevelt would have had no interest in a League of Nations or Wilson’s Fourteen Points (which no one would know or care about; Wilson’s just a normal guy in this alternate universe). The Treaty of Versailles would be less interested in forming a lasting peace and more interested in exacting revenge on the Central Powers. France’s vengeance would have been unchecked by a U.S. leader seeking fairness and Germany would end up with an even more unfair Treaty than the real one was. Germany would be given even more reparations, their economy would have been even worse, and the German people would feel more angry and betrayed. World War Two would either have occurred sooner or not at all. Germany could have been in such a state of economic ruin that they’d still be trying to recover today, or have the perfect environment for Adolf Hitler to rise to power even faster.

    If Taft had been president when World War One started in 1914, the United States might not have gotten involved until much later if at all. Taft preferred to do what was popular, and most of the United States did not want to go to war. Only after the sinking of the Lusitania and the discovery of the Zimmerman Note did the anti-war sentiment begin to leave the majority of the country. Then we would have gone to war. The peace negotiations would, just as with Roosevelt, focus less on the League and the Fourteen Points, but I think that Taft would have tried to be fairer to the Germans than Roosevelt.
15. Mallory Moss March 13, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    19. I think that Americans should limit our involvement until asked to help during the protests in the Middle East. We shouldn’t assist in another country’s protests because the nations of the world need to learn to stand on their own and govern themselves. America needs to stop fighting every other country’s battles, as too many American lives have been lost fighting other country’s wars. The money that has been spent fighting other wars could have been used to feed and shelter our own people. America’s reputation around the world, especially in developing countries, is poor. We are viewed as a big bully trying to beat down and take over other country’s land and resources. This does nothing to stabilize the world and achieve peace; it makes our country seem like a threat to the developing countries. With that said, if America in fact is called upon by the people of another country to help teach and implement democracy, we should lend a hand. We should not force it upon anyone, but we should be willing to lend our expertise as we have had centuries of experience in running an open and free society. There are several international bodies, including the United Nations, that we can work with to help and assist other countries. I think a more effective way of helping is appointing a transition leader like we did with Iraq. This will give the people of the Middle East a chance to elect their own leader instead of us electing their leader. The people will be able to stand on their own so that in the future they can eventually pick a leader without the United States’ assistance. This will help establish democracy-based governments without having the need to fight in another country’s war. Therefore, if another country is struggling with choosing another leader and they ask for our help, we should assist them but we shouldn’t necessarily use our money on overthrowing their leader if they don’t ask for our assistance.
16. Stephanie Dudek March 13, 2011 at 5:29 pm

    5. If I was a women during World War I I think that I would have been against the war. Mostly I think that I would be against World War I because I wouldn’t want people I know have to go fight like my brothers, husband, friends, cousins, or father. I think that I would not think it is fair for American men have to go and fight for other peoples war to fix their problems. Unless I had family or friends that had been killed on the Lusitania or other ships torpedoed by German U-boats I wouldn’t feel the need to get revenge or punish the people who hurt me personally. But if we did go into war I would not work as a war nurse because I cant handle blood and guts. I would just get completely grossed out and have a break down and be useless. Although I would want to help being a war nurse would not be an option for me, I would like to stay home and work in a factory or other war related work. I would rather stay at home and put togeather care packages and medical kits and watch over the children whos mothers are nurses and fathers are fighting. I know that I am better at taking care of kids and packing boxes then I am at bandaging wounds and seeing bloody sheets. I wouldn’t mind working in a factory making fighter planes, or tanks and jeeps, and guns either. That way I am still helping out the warm effort but not in a way that makes me uncomfortable and nervous. Both jobs are necessary and would help the cause just in different ways. I almost feel that the person who stayed at home with the kids and watch over them is more important because most people will be off fighting, nursing, or building. But the person who stays home with the kids doesn’t have to sit around all day like I said they could pack care packages and medical kits that will be shipped to the soliders.
17. Cameron Crawford-Mook March 13, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    I think President Obama needs to very carefully proceed with his decision about a no-fly zone in Libya. Implementing such a zone would be expensive, and possibly could create a snowball effect that would lead to the US engaging in a full conflict with Libyan forces. The US simply can’t afford another conflict without an end in sight. After 10 years in Afghanistan, the American public is tired of a never ending war, and our debt would only go up because of it. Another very important consideration would be what would the US do after we overthrew Muammar el-Quaddafi. Looking back over the history of some of our more recent conflicts of this nature, such as Bosnia and Kosovo or even Afghanistan, the US seems not to be able to leave. We have to help implement a government, ensuring the seeds of democracy are spread, regardless of if the country wants them.
    As an NPR broadcast said on March 13, implementing a no-fly zone is usually followed by on the ground troops, and other military engagement.
    On the other hand, we need to watch world events with a compassion for the lives being lost. Turning our back on the genocide in Rwanda prompted much criticism from the American public and according to some people, US intervention could have saved some lives.
    I think the best way to approach this situation is to continue to assist with evacuations from the country, and take a wait and see attitude. I think in the next several weeks, the situation will become clearer. Currently, the rebels seem to be doing well on their own, but if the situation deteriorates more, perhaps United States action would be warranted. Before we enter however, I think it is imperative to have a very clear goal and a strategy to leave.
18. Elizabeth Benedetti March 13, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    1. I don’t think the School House Rock video accurately showed the events of the Women’s Suffrage movement, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing. The movie was made for younger children and showing them women getting beat and thrown into jails where they were mistreated is probably not the best way to start teaching them history. The way the animated characters paraded around happy with up-beat music isn’t exactly how more mature history books show the Women’s Suffrage Movement, but younger children would understand how the video summarizes it better and wouldn’t be frightened away from learning about events like this. I do think School House Rock videos should be included in school curriculum, but for kids more in elementary school. The catchy music and fun characters make it easy to learn the basics of historical events and people without it being too intense for younger children. Two other videos School House Rock has is one about immigration and another about moving westward. The real stories about these events lead to things like immigrants being mistreated and Native Americans being forced off their land violently. Those events aren’t something someone would tell to a first grader. They’d be sad for anyone that age and it would be hard for them to understand it. The videos that School House Rock make it easier for children of younger ages learn about events in history. Plus they aren’t as scary and they have songs that really get the basic points of events across. There aren’t just videos about history, though. There are grammar ones and ones that teach how the government works and how taxes work. This stuff sounds really boring but the way the videos portray them make it interesting to learn about. They aren’t the greatest videos to be shown in college, but the younger grades could for sure use them.
19. Courtney Stewart March 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    #7 I think in order to lower gas prices back down to a reasonable price, America should pin point the reason that the prices are increasing so rapidly. I think that the answer can simply be supply and demand. I think that there are more cars that are being built to require more gas and the oil refineries are not supplying enough gas to keep up with the cars so the price is being raised.
    If the Oil refineries are able to target more gas and get that gas to the consumer then the prices will drop a considerable amount. Also if scientists are able to come up with a way to make a fuel that can be used in replacement for gas the price will also be lowered because there would be different sources of the fuel. The gas would become more plentiful and the prices would decline.
    I think that simply not driving your car is not the answer, but there are other ways to get from point A to point B with less gas. If you stop driving your car altogether, and begin riding your bike in the winter months you are opening yourself to possible frostbite and also various colds.
    Luckily there are ways to get around and also spend less money for gas; carpooling is a major factor. If you and your friends are all going to the same place instead of riding in separate cars ride together. Another way to save gas can be by simply taking the local city bus with a group of people as opposed to driving. When the weather breaks and it becomes warm outside riding your bike places is a very good idea. If you ride your bike places you save money on gas while also becoming more active. Which will have a lasting effect on your body.
20. Ellen Searle March 13, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    11. The Treaty of Versailles was the main cause of WWII. Some may argue that the main cause was Hitler’s extremism, but Hitler never would have come to power if it hadn’t been for the treaty. The Treaty punished Germany harshly after the war, and created bitterness among German citizens toward the Allies. The massive reparations that Germany was forced to pay after the war helped weaken Germany’s already fragile economy, sending Germany into a severe economic crisis. Although some may point to the stock market crash, the German economy was already being weakened due to massive spending during the war and the massive reparations that Germany was forced to pay to the Allies after the war. This crisis helped bring Hitler to power. The German government did not like Hitler, and the only reason they made him chancellor was because they believed that he was the only one who could get them out of the current crisis and because they believed that they could control him. They were wrong. Hitler’s anti-Jewish sentiment allowed German citizens, bitter from the Treaty, to scapegoat and place the blame of all of their problems on the German Jews. This helped Hilter’s ideas gain acceptance. If it hadn’t been for the harsh punishment of Germany due to the Treaty of Versailles, the Germans wouldn’t have been so bitter and accepted Hitler’s ideas. If Hitler hadn’t gotten so much acceptance from people, the Holocaust probably wouldn’t have happened. Some may also argue that the Allies helped cause the war by appeasing Hitler. While appeasing Hitler certainly didn’t help, war was already inevitable because of the bitterness created by the Treaty. However,the Allies did make the conflict worse by appeasing Hitler because they allowed him to gain strength and think that he could get away with what he wanted. Some may argue that the Treaty had nothing to do with the war in the Pacific. I disagree. I believe that the League of Nations could have prevented the war in the Pacific if the U.S. had joined. When Japan invaded Manchuria, the League voted sanctions against Japan, but the League was so weak that Japan was able to withdraw from the League and prevent the sanctions from being enforced. If President Wilson had compromised, the Senate probably would have approved the treaty, allowing the U.S. to join. Wilson really should have stood up to the British and the French during the Paris Peace Conference. He did not want Germany to punished so much, and he really shouldn’t have compromised with Clemenceau so much. He was way to idealistic and was worrying about his Fourteen Points which did not do an ounce of good for Europe. If anything, they virtually guarenteed another war. The Fourteen Points mainly dealt with allowing certain countries right to self-government and spreading democracy throughout Europe. Self-government would weaken Great Britain by stripping it of its overseas empire. Wilson also didn’t even consider whether Europe even wanted democracy. The only one of his Fourteen Points that had any chance of doing any good was the League of Nations. Instead of pushing for his Fourteen Points, Wilson should have pushed for a treaty that would be fair to all sides and create a Europe that would not be bitter from the Treaty. If the Treaty had been written differently, World War II would not have happened, and the world today would be very different.
21. Jake Rzeppa March 13, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    In response to # 5

    If I were a Woman during World War 1, I don’t think weather I was a man or woman would make any difference in how would I feet about the war. I think I would support the war regardless of being a man or woman. I would support it because the even though war is a horrible, Germans and the Central Powers are waging unrestricted submarine warfare on ships carrying American civilians, if there going to be shooting at us we may as well shoot back and declare war. Even though the U.S insisted on neutrality Germany seemingly wont take “no” for an answer, as made evident by the Zimmerman note they are plotting to attack us next if they are able to beat the allies in Europe. I support the war to ensure the safety of my country and to keep the rest of the world safe from tyrannies of the Central Powers. As far as a jobs concerned I would work as a nurse if that’s what I had to do but I really don’t like blood so I don’t think I would be very would be very good at my job, so I would most likely either stay at home or I would help supply for the war by working in a factory, I would make sure that I do something to be able to aide in the war effort because its lazy to support a war and then not do some part to support it. It is wrong to send someone to die in war and not help out. Also it’s not like I really have an option because assuming I am married and have children, my husband would be in the army so I would have to get a job to put food on the table and pay bills.
22. Emily Novick March 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    7. There are many alternatives to riding cars and new ones are being thought up this very instant. Riding bikes are a good way to reduce your carbon footprint and get exercise. Of course, there are a few crucial drawbacks. First and foremost, if your house is too far from where you need to be, staying out for prolonged periods of time increases your risk of being abducted by aliens. Plus, riding a bike may make you an easier target since you aren’t going as fast and you aren’t as heavy. This can prove to be quite a conundrum if traveling long distances on a bike, not to mention the automatic Queen song stuck in your head. As a random side note, riding your bike for a long period of time may also be inconvenient for time purposes, although aliens pose a much bigger threat. So bikes can be useful, and I encourage more use for them, but they can’t replace cars.
    The next solution would be to have engineers think of more ways for cars to go with less gas. Since my scientific knowledge extends to “may the mass times acceleration be with you” I can’t give a highly convenient renewable resource that can be used to fuel cars without being incorrect. Even though I can’t give a scientific solution, or a different method of transportation, I can give a solution that is hard to access but easy to obtain if we convince them to do so as well.
    The solution to our problem with cars is obvious. Since the Prime Minister already has contact with them, I assume that they will help us. We need to send a group of representative leaders from the leading countries and ask the Ministry of Magic to help. I’m sure floo powder doesn’t cause much pollution, and as an added bonus, no more airport security! Plus, we can get muggles to travel by hippogriff, thestral, or broomstick so grates don’t become too crowded. That is how I would fix the pollution problem with cars.
23. Erin Lammers March 13, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    19. America should do the right thing; if that’s interceding during unjust ruling in foreign countries, then we should do it. Allowing the mindless slaughtering of innocent citizens by a cruel government is sick and shouldn’t continue. We should do what we can to help fellow human beings activate the road to freedom. We don’t want to subjugate the people of this distant country, just aid them in ousting their heinous leader in order to better their government. Despite all of this, we shouldn’t offer help in the form of electing a new leader for them. It’s not our territory, we do not own it, and therefore it’s not our business who gets elected to run that country. This would undoubtedly give America the image of an empire, and other nations would think us greedy and reaching, never content with the vast fortune set before us. After what happened during the Spanish-American war, who could blame those countries for believing that we have the audacity to prey on civil war-torn regions? It would probably be acceptable, however, to suggest a transitional leader, since we might be instrumental in ejecting their volatile ruler. It won’t be our decision, however, because we aren’t imperialistic and we wouldn’t just take over any country we fancy. Admittedly, we did do just that throughout the course of the Spanish-American war, taking Cuba, Guam, Hawaii, and the Philippines, but that was at a time when America’s aims were much more imperialistic. All that these captures awarded us was fruitless fighting and eventual independence to these territories; they were quite tactless exploits. It would be wise to heed history and learn from our mistakes, leaving other nations to decide their rulers for themselves. Though they might be grateful for the aid in banishing their dictator, they probably won’t thank “the land of the free and the home of the brave” for taking away their freedoms.
24. Lizzie Davidson March 13, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    7.
    Gas prices have been rising, lowering (but not by much), and rising again over the past few years. It’s an unpleasant cycle and needs to end. I think we should just stop relying on gas, at least for the most part. The gas prices are unreliable, and you never know when its going to shoot up again. We have the technology to go without it; there are hydrogen powered and electric cars available. These require no gas and are great ways to get around. There’s also E83 ethanol. It’s cheaper than normal gas and a good substitution, if your car accepts it. There also comes a point when you have to ask yourself, “Do I really use all this space in my giant SUV?” Many people could go without the large cars they have and switch to smaller ones, which will require less gas. Though its winter right now and it’s kind of cold, once it warms up transportation without gas will become much easier. Biking is a great way to get a short distance. I wouldn’t suggest replacing cars with bikes, but biking 10 minutes to pick something up from the store is easy. You don’t even have to worry about traffic or finding a parking spot, which are two pluses. If you’re extremely lazy and can’t manage to bike that long, you can try an electric golf cart. There’s many that go 25 mph, so you could drive it around on all residential roads. Taking no gas and no effort, it’s a great substitution to paying as much as $60 for a tank of gas. With so many other options than paying for gas, I think it’s easier to take advantage of those than to try and find a way to lower gas. Once people don’t rely on it, the price will probably drop on its own.
25. Katie Donnellon March 13, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    5.
    If I were a woman during the time of the war I think that I would have supported it. First, it was against Germany, who was blowing up a whole bunch of ships with innocent people on them. They were killing people who had no intention of going after Germany. Also, Germany was planning on coming after the United States, so I think that getting into the war when we did may have saved us from having to fight a battle on our own soil. When the United States intercepted the Zimmerman note, Germany was planning on helping Mexico get back land in the southern U.S. that once belonged to them. I think that I was terrible how we had to go to war and sacrifice our own men, but I think that if we hadn’t and Germany had won then we may have had an even bigger disaster. With war inside the United States then more innocent people could have become victims than what already had with the crew ships like Lusitania.
    If I lived during this time I think that I would have definitely joined the war effort. In doing so, I think that I would have become a nurse. If I were a nurse then I could help all of the soldiers that got hurt in battle. Another reason that I would be a nurse is that it seems like a more exciting job than working in a factory, however both were very important.
26. willy thompson March 13, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    2. All of these social networking sites are like loaded guns. You can choose to use it for what you “think” is good, or you can use it to harass. In China, Facebook and twitter have both been banned because a riot in Tibet caused the world to come together and voice their support for the people in Tibet, who wanted independence. A simple Facebook page can bring together thousands and start a revolution. Twitter provides people around the world with instant, up to date messages that can gather support for a cause. When the government in Egypt shut down the internet, people used their cellphones to update their twitter pages and facebook statuses to inform news agencies and other people around the world of what was going on. The influence of celebrities through social networking sites can effect thousands, even millions of people. When 50 cent tweeted he was in a “fight” with a company over marketing rights, his 2 million followers told their friends to refuse to buy the companies 50 cent memorabilia and the company lost millions. If a celebrity voices their support for the war in Iraq or any other controversial issues, they rally millions for their cause. Current world leaders should not underestimate the power of social networking. The influence that it has throughout the world has been confirmed in Egypt and now Libya. The World Leaders need to keep everything secretive, because one tweet or one status update can inform alot of people extremely fast, and once the word gets out, it can only keep moving across the web. The way that people can share ideas in this day and age can mean revolutions being started in a minute. Governments should monitor major figures using twitter to make sure negative things aren’t said that could possibly make people aware of something that could start revolutionary.
27. Autumn Palmer March 13, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    18. If I could come up with something to help teach kids about WWI, I would create a short play. The play would be short enough to perform during a couple of class periods, and each scene would be acted out by a different small group. The play would include important events such as German submarine warfare, the Zimmerman Note, the U.S. entry into the war, and the Treaty of Versailles. The countries would be represented by their rulers and the rest of the class – not presenting – would be split up into separate countries’ armies. The play would not be long, only representing important points of the Great War. The best part about my idea of this acting session came from what Ms. Zimmerman told us she used to do with her students and The Crucible. The first couple of days, each scene would be acted out to its full extent, and then the third day every scene would have to present in one day, shortening the time for each scene, in which even less specific points are made. By the fourth day, the students should present their scenes in 1 minute or less. These scenes should be the least specific, and by the end of the day, the class should have a good understanding of what happened during the Great War. By working this way, students experience the specifics that then filter down into the main idea, instead of the opposite. Sometimes when the main idea is learned first, it is easy to get lost in all the specifics, but when you learn the specifics first, it makes more sense as you get closer to the main idea. I understand that this may take a while, but each teacher can shorten the time span in order to meet individual curriculum needs.
28. Saul Levin March 13, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    1 The Schoolhouse Rock video clip about Women’s Suffrage portrays the movement feebly. First and foremost, mistakes in the video pointed out by Mr. Wickersham show how little thought was put into the making of the video. British soldiers have nothing to do with Suffrage. Secondly, the video only introduced the reader to a surface level of information that to me seemed half-hazard and incomplete (an incomplete list of suffragist leaders is mentioned once). Finally, although outlining the movement could have been positive, the tone and mood were lost in the ridiculous animations and rhymes (significant points were left out as rhyming was a number one priority).
    This video is intended for young students who learn smoothly with fun animations. When I was in elementary school this collection of Suffrage information could have been beneficial. Elementary school, however, should be the extent to which Schoolhouse Rock videos should be used.
    While the video effectively portrays the general concept of the suffrage movement to these young individuals, it is almost altogether useless in an advanced placement class. Advanced placement U.S. history students are upcoming intellectuals; it would be more beneficial to analyze a detailed script than to watch the video. The video is essentially a waste of time with the overwhelming amount of material that we need to cover. Our class doesn’t have time for childish video clips.
    The only possible instance in which this video could be useful in APUSH would be a critique. This and other Schoolhouse Rock videos could be analyzed for their flaws to further students’ understanding of the topics they are studying. When so little is right about these videos finding out what’s wrong could be the best approach.
    Overall, I think that the video about Women’s Suffrage was unnecessary for our curriculum and that it added nothing to my knowledge about the topic. Although some may argue that it is a fun way of learning more about the topic, I would refute their arguments because APUSH students are too mature for these videos unless they are critiquing them.
29. Sarah Szekely March 13, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    7. I think that driving too much is part of the problem. We can cut down on driving too much by walking or biking places nearby. The biking idea is good but places like here in Michigan it is hard to do that in the winter when there is a foot of snow and its freezing cold. It would only be valid for half the year. Plus, we live in a place where everything is really spread out and far away from each other. If we lived in New York or Chicago or Detroit (the actual city area) then it would be easier to walk or bike more often as well. We can also try to carpool more. If there is a chance you can carpool with someone, I would take it. It would cut down some on the amount we use our cars. Hybrid and electric cars are also becoming popular. The cars are spreading throughout the industry and more and more people are buying them. They are good for our environment and help lower gas prices for those who choose not to buy these cars, however, they can be a tad on the expensive side. I think if we start with that we can get the gas prices down a little. Maybe people should consider getting cars that don’t have such high gas mileage. Hummers and large SUV’s just make it tough on everyone to try to lower the gas prices and keep just a little money in pockets of their owners. I think the Hybrid and the carpool idea is the best, except in the warmer months where we can easily bike in walk to the closer places in the area, lowering gas prices and getting ourselves some (let’s face it) much needed exorcize for this whole country (the western and southern states have no excuse).
30. Riley Landgraf 4th hour March 13, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    4. If I had to work in a meat factory like the characters in the jungle, I would want to be the person that puts the labels on all the meat and food products. I would do this job because I would not want to work with the meat because to me,in that situation ignorance is bliss. Also, I would want to do this because the labeling job because there is no danger, except for maybe the chemicals, involved in it. Another reason is I would not want to have to deal with the politics of the industry like paying off the inspectors and government because I think that is really wrong and extremely disgusting. Under no circumstance would I be the person that cuts the cows into meat because that is the most dangerous jobs there is in that kind of factory in my opinion. The cleavers are big and scary and dangerous and I am not certain that I would not cut some part of my hand off. Also, the really big blades are as big as me and that could kill a person in a second which is not something I want to worry about everyday. Also, the meat and product labeling job is not a lot of hard work and life endangering so I think the pay is low but fairly acceptable for what you are doing. However, when you are putting your life in danger everyday by cutting up cows, I would expect a little more money and what they got paid back then was nothing for the job they did. Overall, if I had a choice I would try to find somewhere else to work rather than a meat factory because it has horrible working conditions, bad pay, bad business practices and mean, cruel bosses.
31. Andrew Hausman March 13, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Although the Treaty of Versailles was extremely and possibly overly harsh, I believe that it is not the sole cause of many of the twentieth century’s significant events. In fact, even though the Treaty played a role, I still think that many of the major events that followed still would have occurred anyway.
    The Treaty of Versailles was not the main cause of the succeeding events, but the war it concluded was. Although Germans were bitter about the Treaty, they were more upset the results of the Great War itself. Future dictator Adolf Hitler was motivated by Germany’s defeat than the terms negotiated afterward. Hitler was so astonished that the German Aryan race that he believed to be superior had lost that he needed to find a scapegoat. He didn’t despise his battle enemies of Great Britain, France and the United States as much as he hated the Jews and Communists, whom he believed had betrayed the country.
    The economic woes of Germany following the Great War can also partially be attributed to the harsh reparations forced upon it by the victorious powers Great Britain, United States and especially France in the Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, a worldwide economic depression was taking place at the same time. This depression can be attributed to many other factors though, including the stock market crash, poor economic planning decisions by the United States and Great Britain, widespread bank failures, overproduction and under consumption. Germany, like with many of the world’s nations, was attempting to regain economic strength, and Hitler promised prosperity to the German people.
    The Korean and Vietnam Wars were essentially indirect clashes between the Soviet Union and the United States, battles of Communism versus Democracy. The Treaty of Versailles could have done little to prevent this. By the time it was signed, Russia was already in the midst of a revolution and civil war on its way to becoming a Communist State. The Treaty of Versailles established Great Britain, France and the United States as world powers. Later, after World War II and the slight decline of Great Britain and France, the United States remained a superpower and was joined by the rising Soviet Union. Due to their extreme differences, they were destined to clash at some point. Thankfully, the rivalry resulted in regional conflicts rather than another World War. However, future Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Min (then Nguyen Sinh Cung) did petition to Woodrow Wilson at the Treaty of Versaille negotiations for Vietnamese independence. However, what were the chances that the President of the United States would really be that influenced by a socialist busboy that he would challenge France to give up one of its colonies?
32. Patrice Bell March 14, 2011 at 12:33 am

    Question 4:

    If I had absolutely no other option than working in an unsanitary meat factory, like the characters in The Jungle, I would probably choose to be wither the person who labels the meat, or the person who rolls the sausages. I would choose either of these jobs because they seem to be the least disgusting. The person who labels the meat has to do just that- label the meat. They don’t have to deal with any unsightly extra parts. They don’t actually have to process the animals, mix anything up, or touch anything, because by the time the meat gets to them, it’s already packaged. And while I’m sure their work conditions were no better than the people who processed and made the meat, it still seems less gross. I would choose to be a sausage roller because although they are indeed touching the meat, it is already in it’s synthetic casing. So it’s not as nasty as actually roughing the meat.
    A job I would absolutely refuse to do would be de-skinning and cutting up the animals for processing. That job is just beyond words disgusting. I can’t fathom cutting up an animal and if I, for some odd reason, were to cut up an animal for human consumption, I wouldn’t let things such as bones and rats get into the mixture. I understand hating your job and being lazy, but that’s just a little extreme, don’t you think? I think it is absolutely horrid how the workers at these factories did nothing to protect the consumers of their products. If you were poor, and this was the only job you could get, I would think that you would want to do a good job at it. But it’s not like the corporate bosses would do anything about these conditions. I just couldn’t even imagine working at one of these factories at all.
33. Eleanor Chalifoux March 14, 2011 at 1:16 am

    As we have probably all learned, most likely the hard way, what we post on the internet spreads fast. Social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter allow people to express their opinions freely. Commonly used among friends, but now more recently, these social networking sites have been used by citizens to organize protests and even overthrow an oppressive government. For example, social networking was used by the Egyptian people to overthrow Hosni Mubarek, who ruled them for 30 years. According to NDTV, Asmaa Mahfouz, a 26 year-old Egyptian women, took matters into her own hands by posting on Facebook about their lack of rights. She set times for protests and told all her friends to join her. She was tired of people complaining about the issues and doing nothing about it. I believe that social networking will change the way citizens see issues and take action upon them. News and opinions are shared easily and are basically accessible to everyone. A simple post, such as Asmaa Mahfouz’s to meet at Tahrir Square outside of Cairo to protest can spark interest and passion among other citizens and lead to massive protests. An almost mob-mentality kicks in and once people see posts online and see how popular the movement has become it is easier to join in. This is most likely also lead to leaders becoming more conscious of how they treat their people. They will learn that as technology become accessible and easy to use, controversy and information spreads around the world and their citizens aren’t going to just sit around anymore. Unfortunately, in this case, people were injured and killed in the protests that have started on Facebook but then again it gives citizens a way to come together to fight for what is right. So in the end, technology has become a great tool and has many pro and cons associated with it.
34. Ophelie Ovize March 14, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Upton Sinclair exposed the unsanitary world of meat manufacture in his novel, The Jungle. If I could have any job inside the factory it would be the packaging and labeling of the meat. I don’t think it is as dangerous as some other jobs such as cutting the meat with huge cleavers. Packaging and labeling would require a lot of time and patience but nothing compared to cutting meat and risking a hand or other body part. Although the pay is probably lower than anything else in the factory, I don’t think there is a huge pay difference with the other dangerous jobs. I think the only danger would be dealing with some chemicals to glue the labels and to seal the packages. In The Jungle, Jurgis, the protagonist of the story, has a dangerous task of meat cutting. It is described as a hard job requiring lifting huge heavy cleavers to cut the cows and pigs into meat. I wouldn’t be able to lift those. The cleavers are tall and with one false move could come down and cut a person in half. I wouldn’t want to expose myself to this level of danger. These meat cutters didn’t even obtain a high salary after a continuous battle to keep you intact or alive. The Jungle describes the entire factory as being a hard and unsanitary place to work every day. The bosses are completely unsupportive and mean to their workers. The workers have to pay off the inspectors to keep the industry going to not lose their jobs. And even with their jobs they barely have enough to survive and support their families in need. So if I had a choice, I wouldn’t even work in the meat industry.
35. Brandon Herman March 14, 2011 at 8:03 am

    3. What would have happened if our country did not join the war?
    If America did not join the war then we would not be in as good of a spot as we are now. First off right before the wear our country was in a great depression and was going into remission. Also because of the war and the trade with the allies, we were able to recover and come back to financial power. If this did not happen then our country may have failed in a depression and may not have been able to make it. Also if this war did not happen then women would be worse off, and we may have not ever have gotten women’s suffrage. This is because during the war, women took over the man’s role, in the home and in the workplace. Also for the first time women were allowed to go into the front line. This helped to escalate their statuses and establish them as citizens. Along with this, if this war did not happen then our country may not have ever earned its status as a power house in the world, and we may not have ever gotten the political power we have now. Lastly, if we did not join this war then our self-defense could have been at risk. This war helped us have an standing army which made our country safer. It also made our country advance its navy, which then made us one of the world’s strongest naval powers. So overall, if our country did not join this war then our self defense could, have been at risk, and we may not be the great country we are today. AMERICA!
36. Alexandre Rochaix March 14, 2011 at 8:23 am

    I believe that the Treaty was part of the reasons that some major wars ensued. It angered many powers, including Vietnam and Germany.

    In Vietnam, the Marxist extremist Ho Chi Minh was angered to the refusal to be included in the major decisions discussed for the treaty. This treaty angered him and led to bitterness towards the big powers, Great Britain, the U.S., and France. The Vietnamese people already hated the French because they had colonized their land. Now though, they included the U.S. in their anger because they had hoped the Treaty could help discuss terms for their independence.

    The Treaty also put immense burden on Germany. It forced Germany to accept full responsibility for the war, pay reparations for the Allies and for themselves, and had their military reduced. The German people were outraged that their leaders would accept such conditions, but their leaders knew it was pointless to keep pushing. Chancellor Phillip Scheidemann resigned when faced with such demands, and Germany only surrendered after the military concluded that it would not be able to defend against another attack. This immense pressure created bitterness and hatred that was cultivated by Hitler’s talented speeches. The Great Depression had led to hyperinflation, ruining what little of an economy Germany had. This led to the popularity of the Nazi party, which promised revenge.

    Revenge, in the end, was what made the Treaty such a hateful document. Its imposing and cruel rules led to bitter hatred which inspired extremists to fight back, in revenge for the economic and militarily devastating powers on Germany.
37. David Bellefleur March 14, 2011 at 9:49 am

    On question 16.
    I think that it is important for presidents to have some secrets because the general public does not want too many things. We like things to be kept secret so that we can avoid total paranoia and panic. I think that the president has to be a politician because being a true people’s president can get him into a lot of trouble. Most people in the U.S. have and will vote on things that just don’t make sense. If a president did everything that the people he ruled wanted, America would not remain a political and physical power. Politics is a dangerous game and it takes more than a person who only listens to others to be one. I bet there were hundreds of attempted terrorist attacks on the U.S. since 9/11 and if we knew about every single one of them, we would be afraid to go outside. Luckily the president keeps many things in the dark from us so that we can remain sane and live a safe life. If the president went on the news every time we stopped a bombing attempt, we would be locked in our basements for the rest of our lives. A politician has to be a politician sometimes and though we may not trust or like them, we need that sort of strong figure to help lead. Teddy was no exception and he did what he thought was either best for America or best for himself. Though he may have made a few rash decisions, most ended for the best in America’s favor, so I believe that we need someone who is willing to listen and be trustworthy towards the people, but keep our best interests in mind when he ignores some of the things that the people say.
38. Jacob Seid March 14, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Jacob Seid
    In answer to Mallory (question #2), I feel that social networks and internet and technology in general is the downfall to our world. A near perfect example of this is the overthrowing of Hosni Mubarek, after 30 years of oppression. His overthrowing was caused by people expressing their opinion on social networks such as facebook and twitter. When it was posted on facebook that a gathering and protest would take place, it led people with similar feelings belonging to others. In this case, the result of all this was the overthrowing of the Egyptian Leader. Yes, I understand that it is freedom of speech and that there are many people’s opinions on the internet and no there are no regulations on what can be posted. I do think that it should be that way because it is people’s choice to do as they will, at least in America. I like that; however, in general, I feel that people spend too much time tinkering around on the World Wide Web. I think that people replace actually living life by replacing it with a virtual, online life. When people do this, all they do is operate blindly or by what they think is right according to what they see on the screen in front of them, not necessarily what is actually behind the screen, or more importantly who. Because people do this, crimes can be committed, pedophiles can roam free and time can be wasted and for what? I can be an example of why the internet is used poorly because sometimes I find that I spend so much time on the computer that I miss the important things that go on outside and around me and I feel left out—even if I am communicating with people. I think that even today, actually speaking with someone, real communication, is still the way to get things done. No what happens on the internet cannot be stopped or removed and people take things seriously, even on the web, according to their beliefs. Unfortunately this day in age a restriction would be so hard to impose and yes what is posted will affect what people think and do in future wars. I also think that it could work for the better by making important things from important people more secretive, and therefore, they will be more careful of what they post. I only wish that people would realize that life doesn’t only exist online.

    Word count: 415
39. Michael Nona March 14, 2011 at 9:59 am

    5. I know I am not a woman but if I was one during World War 1 I think I would probably be against it. Life for women in the twentieth century was hard enough but if your husband was drafted there was a high chance he was never coming back. Out of the millions of people that died chances are he would be one of them. Also if you had any children you had to work to support your family and take care of your children, all while worrying whether or not you would still have a husband at the end of the war. It is stressful enough in present times when three or four people dying is a tragedy. But back then over a thousand people could die in a day and the family wouldn’t know for weeks or even several months. Although I would be willing to be a nurse during the Great War I would still be against the war. Just because I don’t agree with the war it is happening and the troops needed people to help them and save the few that they can. It is important to help soldiers at war any way you can. That being said I would only go to war as a nurse if I didn’t have any children to take care of. I don’t think there are many mothers that would willingly drop their children off at some family member’s home for months on end with no guarantee of ever coming back. In most cases a mother’s child is the most important thing to her. Also when a child is away from their parent for extended amounts of time both the child and the parent will get anxiety that isn’t worth doing something that isn’t 100 percent necessary. A job is something that is worth losing to help with the war but your child is not.
40. charles zuccarini March 14, 2011 at 11:21 am

    3. if america didnt join the war i belive the outcome of the war would have been quite differant. i belive that the germans or axis powers would have managed to take over much of europe. and because of that i belive america would have suffered a big blow to its economie. at the time america had already been in an economic slump and the big reason that we got out of it was because of our selling of wepons and military supplies to the allies. if we had stayed out of the war then we wouldnt have goten the ecomimoc bost that we had. then if germany had takin over europe after the war then we would have gotten evan more of a blow to our economie and we might not have been able to get out of our economic slump. not to mention if we stayed netral and germany held true on its promis to help mexico take back its land from america we would have been very ill prepared to combat them if they attacked us. in fact our army for world war one was relitivly ill prepared when we went in. so if we had stayed neutral and not entered the war i belive america would have suffered greatly.
41. Erick Dagenais March 14, 2011 at 11:38 am

    I don’t think there is much we can do to lower the gas prices back down. We have exhausted the world’s oil supply so much that it is becoming scarce. Companies are spending millions of dollars finding new places to extract oil, and with all the oil spills polluting bodies of water, the expenses rise even further. Riding your bike instead of driving could help lower the gas prices theoretically, but it isn’t very realistic. First off, you would have to get thousands and even millions of people to ride their bikes to lower the gas prices by a few dollars. Also, bikes are a rather slow method of transportation, and getting to the destinations that many people drive to everyday would take hours to ride a bike to. Cars can carry more than just one person, and have the capacity to store many objects. Bikes usually can’t carry anything; they might occasionally have a small basket or water bottle compartment.

    One solution to reducing the total gas combustion is by using public transportation and carpooling with other people. If someone is going to the same destination as you, take them along with you. It might not be that big of a saving, but the savings stack up. Public transportation is another useful money-saving method. Riding the bus or subway may not always lead to your destination directly or as fast, but you don’t have to worry about gas. If you don’t have access to public transportation, you could always buy a smaller car that has better mileage than the average car.

    Another solution is using electric or solar powered cars. A modern step-up to conserving energy is hybrid cars. They use gas to recharge the batter and also use the spin of the wheels when not using gas such as when riding down a slope to recharge the battery. This is already an improvement over our cars today.
42. Chase TuRner March 14, 2011 at 11:44 am

    3. chase turner

    I feel as if America had stayed neutral even after Germany’s resumption of submarine warfare and the Zimmerman’s note Germany and that side may have won the war, because the fact of America joining the war was a huge turning point in the war, they tried to stay neutral as long as they could but after the submarine warfare they decided to join the war, if America hadn’t joined the war there’s a possiblility that Germany could be ruling the world right now as we speak! America isn’t called the most powerful nation in the world for no reason. Everything they do changes how people live, we may think we are more powerful than we actually are but our immergence into the great war was vital for the allies to defeat Germany. Also there is a possibility that the treaty of versallies would never have been talked about because Germany ruled us all. And an even bigger conclusion there is a possiblilty that there wouldn’t have been a world war two, its crazy to think about what COULD have happened if we the United states of America decided to stay neutral throughout the duration of the Great war aka World war 1. We were the reason the allies were winning because we secretly were helping them, (as talked about in the snow ball fight analogy). The Germans and their side finally realized we were helping and then basically we got into the great war, and eventually helped the allies win the war. We made a fool out of Germany. Basically to conclude everything that I am saying is that the outcomes from the Great war could have been the complete opposite everything from the treaty of Versailles to the possiblilty of no hitler or World war two if America hadn’t decided not to remain neutral any longer.
43. Declan Gibbons March 14, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I feel Germany was treated unfairly in terms of the Treaty. I feel this for a couple of reasons. The first is how we tampered with thier imports and exports. We made it so that Germany’s economic legs where taken from underneath them and they basically where limited, in trading and receiving goods, so civillians that had nothing to do with the starved and died of famine. What we should have done was do what where supposividly doing in Iraq, spreading democracy. We should have gone in overthrown the chancellor or kaiser that is causing the most trouble and set up a stable government that is good to trade with. I belive that if we did that there would be no holocaust or world war two because hitlers main points where about redeeming germany after what happened in world war one. If Hitler isn’t chancellor world war two, the holocaust, and the Nazi party would never had happend. I also feel that the Leauge was formed to resolve everything to make things peaceful, but they did the exact opposite, they made Germany bitter, even though at thier weakest they where bound to bounce back and become stronger becuase of thier population and rescources.
44. hannah voigt March 14, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    My belated blog

    5. If I was alive during world war one I believe my opinion of warfare would start out similar to that of President Wilson. I could point out that we as Americans were “the last refuge of democracy” and I would not want to engage in any combat or have my husband or other men in my family join the army, go off to Europe, and get killed by Germans. However once Americans started dying by the unrestricted submarines warfare I freely admit that I would be ticked, especially if I knew then, but when the Zimmerman note was published I believe my blood would boil over and I would probably support the war, buy a few bonds and have a cute little victory garden out front. Maybe I would go as far to have a victory garden gnome waving a little American flag. Assuming that I did not have a job(and did not live on a farm where everyone even women would need to pitch in to make ends meet) I would apply to be a nurse or join an auto assembly line especially if my husband went off to war and my family could use the extra income. I would also encourage my peers and friends to help out as well. I will say I would not say that I would go as far as to get on a boat and head into the trenches but I would try to contribute in any way I could. (same way now, my parents are sending money over to Japan and not letting me get on a boat and go help even though I think it be more productive then final exams)
45. Rob Swor March 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    13: No, I don’t think the Treaty of Versailles was fair to the Germans. First of all, it forced the Germans to pay too much money to the other countries, which put them into a ton of debt that there was no way they would pay off anytime soon. They were in billions of dollars debt, and America had to loan them a ton of money and they still couldn’t pay it off. Also, they lost a lot of their territories, which wasn’t as unfair as the debt, but they still probably didn’t deserve it. The French went way overboard with the German punishment, and America probably was too easy on the French and gave in to their demands, which Wilson had been standing against so strongly. After he got sick, the Treaty changed so much and became such an unfair deal for the Germans, and it’s a surpise they accepted. I would have improved by simply not letting the French do anything to it, as Wilson had originally planned.
46. Devan Moosherr March 14, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    1. I think that the school house rock essay very accurately portrayed the suffrage movement. It had many pictures from the movement. The movie made me remember many important events from the suffrage movement from its use of music to provide an understanding of the time. I liked how the video made the women dress like a women who didn’t care what people thought of her as opposed to a women who people cared about what people thought how she dressed. I think that the school house rock videos should be shown more because it truly does help people learn the material better. If you watch the videos it helps you remember the material more than just reading the material over and over again. I remember watching school house rock when I was younger and watching them now brings back those memories. Bringing back those memories makes me what to learn the material that I am learning by watching these new videos. I thought that it was cool in the video when the woman wasn’t putting her vote on all the presidents that were passing through, but when Wilson passed through, the presidents stopped moving and she put her ballot on him. I thought it was cool how she was saying no to being a regular stay at home mom by waving no to the babies. There was a lot of symbolism in the video. Mad respect. We should for sure watch these videos in the future because it really does make us want to learn more.
47. Dorianballard March 14, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    I think that one of the things that we could do to stop gas prices from rising so dramatically is help contain the situation in Libya. One that situation is under control or at least contained, gas prices should drop because there will be no crazy dictator threatening to blow up all of the gas lines. Another thing that I feel it is wrong is that America pays a very small amount in gas compared pared with other nations around the world. In Europe they are paying six or seven dollars for a tank while here in America we are afraid for the prices to go up to four dollars. I don’t think it is fair to the American people that gas prices have been driven up by forces that are not under our control but it is a sad fact that we have to deal with. On an environmental point the more gas cost the less it gets used. Aw great example of this is the city Copenhagen, Denmark. Their gas is so expensive for household and for cars that not a lot of people use a lot of gas. This idea has won the city numerous green city awards and the air is way less polluted than other developed cities. This city can teach us a valuable lesson. If gas prices are raised people will not waste the gas they do get and maybe people will be more conservative with the gas they already have. I guess it’s a question of what the American people want vs. what we need.
48. Brad Miller March 14, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    If America had stayed neutral even after Germany’s resumption of the submarine warfare and the Zimmerman note, I think the outcome of the war would have been the same, only if Russia did not have to exit the war due to their revolution. However, if Russia still exited the war, Germany the triple Entente may have won the war. If The Allied forces did not have U.S. or Russian aid, they would have crumbled because the Entente could throw all of their forces on only one border and without the backup support of the United States the allied forces could have crumbled. If that happened, Europe could possibly be called the German Empire right now. Back to the other scenario that if Russia stayed in the war, the outcome would remain the same except the treaty of Versailles with the League of Nations might not have posed and not reparations would be owed to the United States. Russia would have spread the Entente on all borders, spreading out their forces, allowing the Allied forces to push the Entente back toward the center of Germany. In either of these situations, the major difference in the outcome is that President Wilson may not have needed to push his Fourteen Points and maybe the Treaty of Versailles would have been a better treaty and not have setup future conflicts for the rest of the century. Also, without the United States joining the war, it still might be known as The Great War and World War II might be known as World War I. I cannot be called a world war unless it involves countries from around the globe and it’s fair to say that it would not have been a true world war without U.S. involvement. However, I believe it was the right decision to join the war, but it could have done in a more strategic way and the Treaty of Versailles didn’t help too much either.
49. Ben Cooper March 14, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Question #9
    I think one of the main reasons that Wilson, and the nation as a whole, were pushed to war was America’s commercial involvement with the allied powers. The Zimmerman note may have been the last straw, but ill get to that later. Throughout the beginning of the Great War, the United States freely traded with the allies supplies. The US would have done the same for Germany if the British Navy had not created a blockade to I pose an embargo of sorts between the us and Germany. Consequently, even though we were supposedly neutral, this created a situation where we were subtly forced to take sides in the conflict and gave the allies the upper hand in their arsenal of resources.
    In 1917, Germany began a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. By this point, the war was not going so well for the Germans and they felt they no longer could afford the distinction. Also, the German U-Boat fleet had about doubled in size since the beginning of the war so the Germans were in a better position to engage in this type of battle (or attack).
    In order to remain neutral, I think Wilson should have re-evaluated how good of an idea it was to dominantly trade with the Allies while ignoring the Germans. I believe that they must have seen that as provocation and as a threat to the German war effort. If their opponents are better supplied, then they must cut off those supplies. American trading with the Allies eventually led to the sinking of the Lusitania which enraged many Americans. While it would have hurt our economy, I think Wilson should have ceased trading with any party involved with the war to truly remain neutral and avoid provoking any side. The Zimmerman note alone would not have started the war if the Lusitania was never sunk.
50. Ryan Stratton March 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    I feel that the Treaty of Versailles was not fair, but only because I’m looking at it from a modern day perspective, rather than during the time period. If you look at some of the main points of the treaty, they were fair during that time period. In the mid 1910s, World War I was the biggest war ever to touch the United States. There is little debate when trying to figure out the cause of the war. There’s really not much to it: Germany started the “War to End All Wars”.

    One of the main things that Germany was forced to do as a product of the Treaty of Versailles was to pay all the reparations for the war. This meant paying back every country for the damages done during wartime. This was a hefty price, which Germany didn’t even have the money for. At the time, I would have believed this would have been a necessary punishment for the atrocities that Germany instigated. However, I now feel that this part of the treaty especially was much too hard on Germany.

    The other main point in the treaty was that Germany lost all of its colonies. This I felt was unfair then, and still feel is unfair now. I understand the thinking behind it, but the fact is, it was the few reasons for the second world war. Had we allowed Germany to keep it’s colonies, its possible that World War II could have been prevented.

    Had I been in this position, I wouldn’t have let the French run wild with their demands on the treaty. I would have fought with them, not given in. Even after Wilson fell ill, he should have found someone who would uphold Wilson’s same ideas, not scrap them in order to get the treaty done quicker.