HW4.6

Did Reagan’s policy fit his brand of conservatism?

Reagan's changes in office obviously did not fit his brand of conservatism.

Reagan’s policy did not fit his brand of conservatism because he promised to end the deficits in; yet, it wasn’t successful. Before Reagan, budget deficits remained below $75 billion. From 1982 to the end of Reagan’s second term, however, annual deficits exceeded $100 billion. In 1986, the annual deficit reached a new record of $221 billion.
Another policy which did not fit Reagan’s brand of conservatism was the tax cutting. Promising to bring America out of economic depression; however, did not work under Reagan. Due to the tax cutting, the national debt nearly tripled from $908 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988. The government had to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars each year just to pay the interest on this debt.

4.5

Did Reagan's policies fit that brand?

Reagan's changes in office obviously did not fit his brand of conservatism.

One of Reagan's policy- supply side economics shows that it is a liberal change. According to this policy, economic growth depends on increasing the supply of goods and service. Which he uses it to increase the power of state government in order to bring America out from the economic depression.

Another policy which does not fit conservatism is evangelicals. which gives the Christians the ability to speak in the society. Yet, none of the president had given religious groups a chance to talk. Thus, the new change is considered as a liberal change.

The reduce of the spendings of social warfare definitely does not fit Reagan's brand. They believed that social programs stifled personal initiative and produced a dependence on government aid, thus trapping people in a cycle of poverty. Yet, the changes has not been done before. Thus it is a new change in the society.

HW4.2

"Who is to blame for America's trend toward high divorce rates, starting in the 1970s?"

The middle-age men are responsible for America’s trend toward high divorce rate.

In the 1970s, it is clear that women are treated unequally throughout their lives in the society. As men had the opportunity to work freely, women are locked in the house, forced to be housewives.
As in previous eras young women would have married middle or lower-class men of roughly their own age and started families, they now became prey for the middle-age wealthy men with “Jennifer Fever” (Schweikart). And the whole situation trend toward high divorce rate.
Moreover, middle-age men tend to “use” the no-fault divorce in order to get away with their wives so they could marry young girls. Feminist had unwittingly given the middle-age men a remarkable gift, pushing as they had for the no-fault divorce. Due to that, middle-age women were abandoned by a lot of middle-age men which leads to the high divorce rate.
"Popular TV shows from the 1970s show that a 'woman's place' in society at that time meant change in divorce laws were needed." Edith, a character in “All in the Family”, was the "put-upon wife," often bemoaning her husband's behavior or comments (Wikipedia), which shows that middle-age men treated their wives anyway they desired, deservedly; middle-age men would marry a younger wife as they got bored with the old wife. For all, the divorce law is considered to be changed until it provides middle-age women a better advantage.

HW4.1

Document C
Questions for understanding
1. “Mr. Dash” is Sam Dash, an attorney for the Senate Watergate Committee. What does he hope to discover, overall from his questions of Mr. Kalmbach?
- What was the secret conversation between Mr. Dean and Mr. Kalmbach about raising funds for the seven defendants?
- Did or did not Mr. Kalmbach accepted the assignment.
2. Why do you suppose Mr. Dash makes Mr. Kalmbach recount his trip from the West Coast to Washington, DC?
- Because he wanted to know whether Mr. Kalmbach was telling the truth and any extra details while his trip to Washington, DC.(Like the phone call)
Questions for exam practice
3. What is the message of Doc C?
- Mr. Dash wants the government to know that Mr. John Dean did involve the Watergate act and at the same time, committed crimes yet had kept it a secret from others.
4. What is the significance of the “$50,000 - $100,000”?
- It stands for the amount of money for funding for legal defense for the defendant and for the support for their families and also connects to Mr. Stans.
5. What is one value of this document for the historian investigating whether men working for President Nixon broke the law or not?
- Mr. Kalmbach(who worked in the white house) did supported the Watergate act, in other word, committed crimes which leads up to the president due to their relationship for working in the White House together.
6. Is that value based on origin or purpose?
- Purpose

Document F
Questions for understanding
1. “Q.” is a lawyer, working for the House Judiciary Committee. What does he hope to discover, overall from his questions of Mr. Hunt?
- To know that whether Mr. Hunt was involved in the Watergate.
- The details of the conversation between Mr. Hunt and Mr. O’ Brein.
2. Why do you suppose the attorney for the HJC keeps pushing Hunt about his use of the word “seamy”?
- Because he wanted the evidence of Mr. Hunt’s commitment to be clear that he went against the law for getting involved in the Watergate act.
Questions for exam practice
1. What’s the message of Document F?
- Q wanted the government to know that Mr. Hunt was involved in the crime, also, that seamy things were committed for the Whitehouse.
2. What is the significance of term “package”?
- In the package, there was $75,000, which means that the money was sent to him from Mr. John Dean and connected the whole event to the Whitehouse.
3. What is the significance of the phrase, “you only had a certain number of days to get your affairs in order.”?
- It means that Mr. Hunt’s commitment in the Watergates was already blown and had to attend the affairs to show how and what he involved.

HW8

QUOTE: “Non-violent resistance to injustice was a good strategy for southern civil rights leaders.”

Agree: Non-violent resistance to injustice was a good strategy for southern civil rights leaders, because the gevernment would have no rights to punish those who are African Americans unequally due to their "peaceful" protest.

Disagree: Non-violent resistance to injustice was not a good strategy for southern civil rights leaders, because the government could easily ignore the protest due to no violence and sence of anger.

HW7

Question: How strong is the evidence of UFO appearing in Trumbull Ohio Disturbance?

Agree: The author did not believe in UFOs, yet, when he was seeking quantitative data on Mexico City UFO reports for possible hypothesis tests relating public opinion of UFOs and official sighting reports frequency, he found the incidence and got into it. He showed evidence of the whole incident. And also called for support.
url:(http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/062/S62952.html)

Disagree: John Cason, who disagrees with UFO appearing in the Trumbull Ohio Disturbance, also has details that are consider logical and reasonable. He states his position in a more scientific way and explained why the incident is fake listing out the quotes skoken by the witnesses from the Trumbull Ohio Disturbance.
url:(http://kenny.anomalyresponse.org/Trmbl5.htm)

REPAIR

'How real was the threat of Communist spies within the USA?"
To the USA, the threat of communist spies is very real; and the USA took it very seriously. An example could be the loyalty oaths(1947), where hundreds of government workers lost their jobs for being “potentially” disloyal. Which sometimes was just been incriminate by their friends or people beside them.

Another example would be the Alger Hiss case(1950) and Rosenberg trail(1953). The reality of being betrayed by their own people raised the fears of the USA towards spies, also the threat of communist party became stronger. Due to the fears of the people of the US toward the communist spies, it is clearly shown that the USA really took the event seriously.