Which Bush is Which?

At times, it can be confusing to tell which George Bush is THE George Bush you're looking for. Both were Yale educated men, members of the grand old party, and heck, they even look very similar. Just take a look at their profiles:

But these two men were different people, and different presidents. Here are some of the key policies of both men to help you remember what each was remembered for.

GEORGE H. W. BUSH

This is was the man who ran for president in 1988, and was the number two man under Ronald Reagan. His famous statement "read my lips, no new taxes" turned out to be a mistake in the long run as he ultimately betrayed the confidences of the American people by doing just what he said he would not. He was able to appoint 2 members of the Supreme Court, but his domestic policies were judged to be lack-luster. Bush was most confident in foreign affairs (as he had gained much experience from his time as vice-president). Operation Desert Storm was one such example of successful policy. Probably the most significant event in foreign affairs under Bush senior was the destruction of the Soviet Union, which was the beginning of a new era in foreign policy. The Soviet Union would no longer be the guiding principle in US foreign policy.

GEORGE W. BUSH

George Bush junior was president following Clinton, making him the 43rd president. The "No Child Left Behind" policy, which hoped to help the state of education in the US was created during his time in office. The 911 terrorist attack occurred in his first term, and it provoked a series of anti-terrorist legislation including the Patriot Act. Bush declared the "War on Terror" and began a crusade against al-Quaeda, but later he would be publicly criticized for dragging the country into war. Bush was also president in our lifetime, so perhaps many of you have heard opinions about him from your parents. My parents tend to think he was one of the worst presidents of all time, but realistically they haven't been alive through enough presidents to really know that.

We have covered Bush senior more in depth, so if anyone would like to add some information about him please comment. What else stood out to you about him?

SDI was a form of defense in space, but was there a thought of any offense?

So I'm sure as all of you were wondering as was I was wondering, in today's documentary viewings there was something quite strange. Although SDI or Reagan's Star Wars project was extremely far-fetched,  many people were afraid of attacks from space, especially in the European countries. But being only a defensive measure to destabilize MAD and nuclear war as a whole, what were people so worried about? after doing some research I came to a very tantalizing answer in the form of some extreme science. I found this article from the NY times website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-9.html?_r=0

You should read it, it is interesting. So what does this mean? Well the original concept creator Jerry Pournell made the idea of Project Thor, a weapons system that launches kinetic projectiles from earth's orbit to the ground. Yes indeed, orbital satellites that can raid down hell fire just like "Thor" the Nordic God. And these are not your regular missile my fellow peers, these kinetic rods would have global strike capability, would be able to hit their targets within mono digits minutes, and impact at speeds of Mach 10. Pretty intense if you ask me. But why don't we have these types of weapons if they are so great? Well in 1979, arms limitation talks between US and USSR known as SALT II, the world powers limited orbital weapons to just conventional weapons, so no WMD; chemical, nuclear, biological, radiological weapons in space could be used. So with all the extremely scary weapons out of the way, what types of damage could they actually do? well depending on the size of the projectile, a 6.1m by 0,3m tungsten rod impacting at Mach 10 has the kinetic energy equivalency 11.5 tons of TNT. To put that into perspective, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima yielded a explosion equivalent to 16 kilotons of TNT. So if we did have these types of weapons, they wouldn't be nearly as effective as a nuclear strike, especially a Hydrogen bomb. If we were to have a Kinetic Bombardment system in space, its only real military application would be that it would be very fast to its target, and very accurate.

Parallels in History

While reading the news, I stumbled upon an article that piqued my interest, located here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/michigan-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-is-struck-down.html?_r=0.

This article discusses a federal judge's decision to strike down a ban in Michigan on same-sex marriage. Courts across the country are ruling that marriage is a constitutional right for gay and lesbian couples that cannot be denied by states. In fact, the current circumstance can be directly related to the events of Brown v. The Board of Education. The passage "At the trial, Michigan argued that it was wrong for federal courts to overturn a policy adopted by public referendum in 2004, and that Michigan voters should decide if change was needed. But Judge Friedman ruled that state authority 'cannot trump federal constitutional limitations'" particularly demonstrates the balance between state and federal authority, and how judicial powers can tip this balance.

Reaganomics

In class last Thursday, we talked a little about Reagan's economic policies, which became known as "Reaganomics".   This post aims to give a little preview about the mechanics of "Reaganomics"before we delve deeper into this topic in class.

During Carter's presidency, the economy went downhill, hence the reason why many Americans consider Carter's presidency a failure.  When Reagan came into office, he believed that a high tax burden along with excessive government regulation prevented economic growth.  Thus he proposed a tax cut, in which the bulk of the cut was concentrated at the upper income levels.  Contrary to popular belief, Reagan believed that the upper income levels, the big businesses, should be helped directly instead of the lower levels.  By cutting their taxes, the rich would be able to spend and invest more, which would stimulate the economy and allow for more job positions.  This economic theory was called Supply-Side Economics or the more well-known Trickle-Down Economics.  If the expenses of the big corporations and the rich are reduced, their savings and wealth would "trickle-down" to the rest of the economy, spurring growth.  At first Reagan's plan didn't seem to work, as inflation continued to increase because of the high-interest rates.  However, the economy eventually stabilized in 1983 and the remaining years of Reagan's administration showed growth.

Because "Reaganomics" seemed to stabilize the economy, Reagan's presidency could be considered a success.  However, during Reagan's presidency, the national debt tripled.  Reagan insisted that the US was vulnerable to the Soviet Union in terms of nuclear defense.  Thus, he increased the amount of military spending.  The tax cuts and the increased military spending cost the federal government trillions of dollars.  So, what do you all think - was "Reaganomics" truly a success?

March 20 2014 Podcast

For those of you who left early for sports or some other reason, here are the youtube links for the rest of class on March 20th which includes the end of the powerpoint and the 1st two questions from the worksheet "The Supreme Court" (1. "How did WWII change many Americans perception of America itself?" and "Why did many people consider Hugo Black a political anomaly?").  

Hope it helps.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Q5BDZtqF4&feature=youtu.be (12:00 minutes)

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQn8zVL6ue0&feature=youtu.be (13:00 minutes)

Again, please let me know if there is a problem with the links.

Yom Kippur War

In class today, Mr. Stewart explained several events surrounding the oil price explosion of the 1970s, one of which was the Yom Kippur War of 1973. This post will attempt to go into more detail regarding the circumstances of the war. The war began on the Day of Atonement, which is known as Yom Kippur, a holy day on the Jewish calendar. In fact, this war was a continuation of the Arab–Israeli conflict, which had begun in 1948, when the state of Israel was formed. Since Israel had experienced a massive victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, gaining control of territory four times its previous size, the Arab nations were determined to win their former land back.

On October 6, 1973, the Arabs caught Israel by surprise with an attack, knowing that their military would be taking part in religious celebrations in accordance with Yom Kippur. Egypt and Syria's combined forces were overwhelming, and other Arab nations also rallied against Israel. Just the forces that gathered on Golan Heights, a strategic location in north Israel where Israeli troops were gathered, were massive. As one article states, "The combined forces of Egypt and Syria totalled the same number of men as NATO had in Western Europe. On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers ... Iraq transferred a squadron of Hunter jet fighter planes to Egypt a few months before the war began. Iraqi Russian-built MIG fighters were used against the Israelis in the Golan Heights along with 18,000 Iraqi soldiers. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait effectively financed the war from the Arabs side. Saudi troops – approximately 3,000 men - also fought in the war. Libya provided Egypt with French-built Mirage fighters and in the years 1971 to 1973, Libya bankrolled Egypt’s military modernisation to the tune of $1 billion which was used to purchase modern Russian weapons." Soon, Egyptians had crossed the Suez Canal and were inland of Israeli troops. Similarly, Syrians had advanced far into Golan Heights. With all the odds stacked against them, Israeli forces were soon crushed and their future was heavily at risk.

Two days later, backed by reserves, Israeli troops began to fight back. They counter-attacked in the Sinai, and advanced towards Cairo. In Golan Heights, too, they pushed back Syrian forces and advanced towards the Syrian capital. Having waited a week as a courtesy to Egypt, President Nixon now favored Israel with emergency military aid in an airlift of arms. Initially, American leaders had expected the tide to quickly turn in favor of Israel, and Henry Kissenger's argument that Israel needed incentive to conform to American ideals was ignored. When this did not happen, Nixon called for Operation Nickel Grass on October 9. This resulted in the aforementioned airlift of arms. On the same day, the Soviet Union began providing support for Egypt and Syria by air and sea. The United States also supplied Israel with essential intelligence, using spy-planes to determine where major concentrations of Arab forces would be. American reconnaissance gave Israel the ability to coordinate attacks for maximum effect, knowing exactly where to strike at the enemy.

Thus, on October 24, the United Nations organized a cease-fire for the warring nations. Peacekeepers were sent to deal with the leftover fighting. Henry Kissenger, then the American Secretary of State, acted as a peace broker. Egypt and Israel signed an interim agreement in September 1975, promising to settle differences with peaceful means. Eventually this would lead to American sponsored talks at Camp David. Anwar Sadat, then the leader of Egypt, was seen to have betrayed the people by employing diplomacy to deal with Washington, D.C. For this, he would be assassinated in 1981 by Muslim fundamentalists. Israel's victory came at a high cost with many casualties, and many citizens were displeased with their government. Angry at the disaster the war had wrought on themselves, Syria and other Arab nations expelled Egypt from the Arab League in 1979.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://www.history.com/topics/yom-kippur-war
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/yom_kippur_war_of_1973.htm

Impact of Watergate

While we did learn quite a few about the mechanics and overall reasoning behind the Watergate Scandal, we never really touched base on the impacts it had, other than President Nixon resigning.

Not surprisingly, the immediate impact was that it greatly hurt the Republican Party's reputation and also undermined the people's faith in government.  In fact, the growing disillusionment and lack of faith in the government that we continue to see today can be linked back to this scandal.  Additionally, Watergate immediately led to attempts to make the government more transparent and to limit the presidential power.  Three major federal open-record reforms were passed in response to Watergate: the Government in Sunshine Act (1976), the Ethics in Government Act (1978), and the Presidential Records Act (1978).  The Sunshine Act required government agencies, with exempt cases, to conduct all meetings open to the public.  The Ethics in Government Act required public officials to disclose their financial and employment histories and to create restrictions on lobbying.  The Presidential Records Act required preservation of all presidential records and documents.  Congress also passed the War Power Act in 1973 to limit the president's power to wage war.

So overall the Watergate scandal damaged the government's reputation, especially the Republican's image.  This blow to the Republicans and later on when Ford pardoned Nixon, ultimately helps Carter, an outsider and a democrat, come to office.   The Watergate scandal also shed some new light to the people, who realized that their government was not the all trustworthy government they had thought it to be.   This brought upon a wave reforms trying to curb the power of the government and the president himself.  But even with reforms enacted, how can people be sure there's no "shady" action still going on?

America's Lost Innocence

   In today's society, the public has very little trust in the government, and every personal move made by politicians is available for everyone in the country to see and judge.  Whether it be Barack Obama partying in college or Michael Grimm exploding on a reporter (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/01/29/video-gop-lawmaker-michael-grimm-curses-threatens-reporter-after-state-union for those of you who don't know what I'm referencing), everything that politicians do or have done in their past are brutally exploited by the public.  However, America has not always been this way.  The Watergate Scandal of Nixon's presidency and the Pentagon Papers from the Vietnam war led the American public to watch their government much more closely.  The Pentagon Papers were the history of the United States involvement in the war in Vietnam, and showed how the American military had been doing during the war.  When these papers were released to the public in 1971, the public was shocked when it learned that the Johnson administration had lied to the American public about the condition of the war.  The Johnson administration led the public to believe the war was going well for the US when in fact it was not, and the administration withheld information from the public about the expansion of the war into Cambodia.  When President Nixon was in office, a group of men broke into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters.  This incident was at first not a large deal, because no immediate connection was made to the White House, and President Nixon denied any connection to the break in.  But as evidence poured out, the public began to be very suspicious of Nixon's involvement.  Although Nixon was never proven to have participated in the Watergate break in, the public suspicion about the president refusing to hand over White House recordings and other suspicious activities committed by the president, he finally became overwhelmed and resigned from office.   These actions by the Johnson administration led the public to view the White House and the American government in general with a closer eye.

Counterculture: Hipsters of the 1960s

Everywhere in the 1960's a sort of "don't trust the authority" attitude sprang up.  Not to say that people were not aware before, but there was definitely a more mass awareness that American society wasn't a completely free, democratic melting pot.  Racism, sexism, imperialism, and oppression are even present in the country where "all men are created equal."

One could go on and on theorizing was caused this new movement.  The Vietnam War exposed that the US government was prone to fighting a bad war, and breaking moral code along the way.  Another cause may have been the split from the church: (in general) more educated families became increasingly secular while the less educated became increasingly more religious.  Others could say that this was just an effect of the baby boom.  Young people are always rebellious and challenge authority.  The reason it was so prevalent in the 60's was there was simply more young people.  Feel free to leave more of your ideas in the comments.

The hipsters of the 60's were notable for movements such as the Free Speech Movement, centered right next door in Berkeley.  Cal had banned the use of campus space for political debate.  Students protested   claiming the administration was promoting "corporates interests rather than humane values."

The counterculture movement wasn't just in America.  In May 1968 students in France organized massive strikes against the worn down university system.  The same year in Czechoslovakia, people inspired by western ideals protested; that is until Soviet tanks came in to end it.  This is known as Prague Spring.

Not all reform groups had great ideals.  One group called Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) originally started out fighting poverty and protesting war, but by the end of the 1960s they had begun an underground terrorist group known as the Weathermen.  What started out as peaceful civil rights movements turned into violent riots.

So was the counterculture movement revolution or simply another from of progressive ideals coming to light?  Leave your thoughts below!

Good Morning, Vietnam

   Going off of the theme of American movies based on wars the American military fought in, this post will talk about a movie from 1987 called Good Morning, Vietnam.  While most war movies are based on the battles fought during wars (Saving Private Ryan etc.), Good Morning, Vietnam is a movie who's main character never actually fought a battle in Vietnam.  Adrian Cronauer was a radio DJ who worked in Vietnam as the morning host for the radio program the soldiers listened to.  In any war, the morals of the soldiers is very low as they are homesick and just want to return to America and see all of their families.  Vietnam was especially hard on the morals of soldiers for two reasons.  They had initially believed that the war would be very short, so the fact that it was taking so long was very tough on the soldiers.  Vietnam also was a war in which it seemed the Americans couldn't really win, so it was tough for soldiers to fight when they didn't think they could win the war. When the American military hired Cronauer as the radio DJ, the previous host had been a very boring, by the book host, which the military officials loved, but the soldiers couldn't bear.  Adrian Cronauer was anything but boring, playing rock and roll music and cracking jokes all morning long (just like Mr. Stewart!).  Rock and roll was a very new type of music that was looked down upon by the military officials who were older, but beloved by the young soldiers.  Cronauer's mix of up beat music and hilarious jokes lifted the morals of American soldiers and helped make a very difficult war a little bit more bearable.  Good Morning, Vietnam features Robin Williams as Adrian Cronauer and is a very historically interesting and hilarious movie.

Carter and the Energy Economy

By late 1970's, after a recession under Ford, general inflation in the US resumed.  The bill for oil skyrocketed, as much of the dependence was on foreign oil at this point.  America's balance of payments reached an unprecedented $40 billion dollars in the red.  This made many Americans realize that a policy of economic isolationism simply won't ever work; at least no as long as we are dependent on foreign oil.  In other words, if we are purchasing lots of oil from overseas, we will need to be selling a lot of something to be making back that money.  In the late 1970's that just wasn't happening.  The deficit in the federal budget reached a whopping $60 billion in 1980.

As a result of inflation, the elderly and those living on fixed incomes really suffered.  Others coped with the economic conditions by investing their money.  As the value of the dollar plunged, interest rates reached 20% by early 1980.  Carter decided the problem was the dependence on expensive foreign oil.  He pushed for energy conservation, although Americans, forgetting the long lines at the gas pump in 1973, didn't seem to care.

In Iran, oppressive dictator Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who was put into power by the American CIA in 1953, was overthrown in 1979.  The people of Iran, angry at the United States, put the plug on oil exports from Iran.  OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), now dealing with an oil shortage, (shortage might be an exaggeration, let's just say they had less oil than before) hiked up prices.  Like in 1973, there were long lines at the gas pumps for Americans.  Discontent with Carter among Americans skyrocketed.  Then, in his famous Malaise Speech, Carter scolded Americans for being too concerned with "material goods" and claimed this nation was in a "moral and spiritual crisis."

I find it quite perplexing as to why a president would say that our capitalistic economy is too materialistic.  It seems like trying to give philosophical solution to a quite tangible problem.  Sure, one could argue our society is too obsessed with material things, but that seems like something a president wouldn't speak about publicly.  It appears to me as if Carter was losing control of the economy, and was trying to find a scapegoat.  What are your thoughts on how Carter dealt with the oil crisis?  Comment below!

Vietnam Veterans Memorial

During class, one documentary showed a clip of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. This V-shaped wall, designed by a college student and inscribed with the names of over 58,000 U.S. soldiers, features elegant black granite and was first unveiled on November 13, 1982. Over 4.2 million visitors came to pay tribute in 2012 alone, and it is one of the most popular tourist attractions. It continues to be a very controversial memorial, and names are still being added. The infographic below details some lesser known facts about this memorial.

Sources:
http://www.history.com/shows/vietnam-in-hd/infographics/vietnam-veterans-memorial-infographic
http://www.history.com/news/6-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-vietnam-veterans-memorial

Agent Orange

In another March, 45 years ago, President Nixon's advisors were holding secret negotiations with Vietnam as Nixon himself tried to placate America. These negotiations would lead to the policy of Vietnamization, which was a way to extract U.S. forces from Vietnam without discrediting their power and also to help the Vietnamese fight for themselves. In this post I will summarize some of my findings on one aspect of the war.

After doing some research, I found that there was, and still is, controversy over the use of Agent Orange in the war. Agent Orange is a toxic mixture of chemicals that was used as herbicide to clear the forests of Vietnam, removing cover for Viet Cong forces. From 1961 to 1972, Operation Ranch Hand led to the spray of more than 19 million gallons of Agent Orange over 4.5 million acres of land. Agent Orange was only one member of the "Rainbow Herbicides," which also included Agents White, Purple, Pink, Green, and Blue. Containing a chemical called dioxin, Agent Orange has proved to be extremely hazardous even in small doses, leading to muscular dysfunction, inflammation, birth defects, nervous system disorders and even cancer.

Decades later, veterans of the war and Vietnamese citizens continue to be affected by its toxicity. This led to a class action lawsuit in 1979, which was filed to bring justice for the 2.4 million veterans who had been affected by Agent Orange. The U.S. Supreme Court was eventually involved, and in 1991 President George H.W. Bush signed the Agent Orange Act into law, guaranteeing that diseases associated with the chemical would be treated.

The impact of Agent Orange on Vietnam is also very significant, for around 400,000 people were killed or maimed by such toxins. Furthermore, around half a million children were reported to have been born with serious defects, along with the 2 million people that are still suffering from health issues caused by Agent Orange. To top this off, approximately 5.5 million acres of forest and cropland were ruined by the extreme environmental damage that the U.S. inflicted. Vietnamese citizens filed a class-action lawsuit against the guilty chemical companies in 2004, arguing that Agent Orange had left a legacy of health problems, which constituted a violation of international law. However, also in March, this suit was dismissed.

America has been reluctant to admit the damage that it did to Vietnam with Agent Orange, but in 2012 finally the first move was made to address the remaining environmental damage. A program involving U.S. Aid is slated to last for four years and cost $43 million. Vietnamese citizens agree that this is a start, but bitterness over the last forty years remains, and much more action on the part of America is called for to right these wrongs.

Sources:
http://theweek.com/article/index/258148/today-in-history-nixons-secret-negotiations
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/us-moves-to-address-agent-orange-contamination-in-vietnam.html

What exactly is happening in Ukraine?

Today in class Mr. Stewart mentioned in passing why when we ask our parents about the political events that occurred during their childhood they do not often remember very much.  He pointed out that most people do not have a lot of interest in political affairs.   He made a comparison between our parents not knowing much about the watergate scandal to the reality that we will find when we have children of our own and they ask us about the issues currently concerning the Crimean Peninsula.

Now i know that many of you may not especially care about the Crimean Peninsula, especially given that it is in no way connected to the United States.  In fact it lies half way around the world in a rather choice location on the Black Sea.

Crimea has had a troubled history and much like Ukraine has often been invaded and occupied by different powers, including Gothic tribes, the Kievan Rus' state, the Mongols and the Byzantine Empire.  Crimea was obviously a pretty coveted little peninsula, and rightly so.  Because of its location, Crimea provides an occupying government with a very strategic location and an ability to regulate trade between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

And it is because of this strategic location that the great powers of Russia and an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia (Taylor) went to war over it in 1853.  The war lasted for 3 years and was devastating to all sides.  In the end Russia lost the war to the alliance, however it retained the badly battered Crimean Peninsula.

Moving into the 20th century, Crimea was briefly its own sovereign state in 1917 after the fall of the Russian empire.  It was quickly drawn back under the sphere of Russian control though as the Russians experienced their civil war.  After the formation of the USSR in 1921, Crimea was known as the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, and then later became the Crimean Oblast, an administrative region of Russia, in 1945.  

During WWII it was occupied by Nazi Germany, and when it came back under Red Army control after the turn on the eastern front, "it forcibly deported the entire population of Crimean Tartars to Central Asia as punishment for collaboration with German forces"(Taylor).  

Then in 1954 Premier Nikita Khrushchev made a gift of the peninsula to Ukraine.  

In 1991, Despite Crimean desire to become its own sovereign state, Crimea and Ukraine agreed to keep the Crimean peninsula a part of Ukraine but give Crimea its own constitution and legislation.  

So how does this history play into the current issues in Ukraine and Crimea today?  Well.... there are a lot of Russians in Crimea.  And Russians tend to like Russia.

With the recent political activity in Ukraine, and the currently sort of confusing government thing that is going on over there (which i will not go into in this post) there has been a lot of activity surrounding Crimea.  And this is where the US comes in.  

Admittedly, if you have heard anything about the recent feelings of Russia surrounding the ownership of the Crimean Peninsula I'm sure you have probably heard something that sounds a little bit shady.  However Russia claims that there is nothing shady about the recent addition of the Crimean Peninsula into the Russian state.   

President Vladmir Putin of Russia signed a treaty with the Crimean Prime Minister Serhiy Aksyonov after a resounding 96 percent of Crimean people voted in favor of becoming part of Russia (Putin Claims...).  Putin says "Crimeans say that in 1991, they were passed to Ukraine like a sack of potatoes. It is hard to disagree with that. Since then many people have raised the issue - and have said that Crimea is a Russian land, and Sevastopol is a Russian territory" (Putin Claims...).  And that while it is true that the turnover of Crimea went against international law it was done as a response to the will of the people who voted in a referendum that was "in full accordance to the democracy standards and international law" (Putin Claims...).  

The US disagrees with Putin's assessment of the situation saying that Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula is "nothing more than a land grab" (Vice President Joe Biden in Press).  However Putin stated that these accusations and pressures from the west are merely an example of their notoriety for double standards, saying that "it's good that they at least remember that international law exists" (Press).  Putin says that Western nations are denouncing the actions of Russia as a land grab and as "a threat to the civilized world and international security" (Press), but at the same time many of these western nations have trampled upon international norms in the wars in "Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya" (Press).  

And i think that President Putin has a very reasonable point.  Too often the United States creates laws and sanctions for international conduct and then expects everyone but themselves to adhere to those laws.  As Putin so aptly says it "Our Western partners led by the United States prefer to proceed not from international law, but the law of might in their practical policies" (Press).  So perhaps the US should not be so quick to puff out its chest and denounce Russian actions, especially when its record for recent international conduct is not so very clean either.  

If you want to learn more here is a great video which talks about the current issues in Crimea but focuses a little more on the issues in Ukraine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2nklduvThs



Press, The Associated. "Putin Signs Treaty To Add Crimea To Map Of Russia." NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=291017632>.

"Putin Claims Ukraine's Crimea as Russian Territory to Right Historical Wrong."KyivPost. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/putin-justifies-russian-annexation-of-ukraines-crimea-339815.html>.

Taylor, Adam. "To Understand Crimea, Take a Look Back at Its Complicated History."The Washington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fworldviews%2Fwp%2F2014%2F02%2F27%2Fto-understand-crimea-take-a-look-back-at-its-complicated-history%2F>.

Frost/Nixon

 Briefly in class today, Mr. Stewart said that Nixon agreed to a set of Interviews by David Frost in 1977, and I had heard about these interviews because I have seen the movie about them, so I decided to dig deeper into the subject.

After his resignation in 1974, Richard Nixon left the public scene for more than two years, and it was assumed that this would be the end of Nixon's public career.  But in 1977, Richard Nixon put himself back in the public scene with a series of interviews conducted by British journalist David Frost.  When Frost first asked to interview Nixon, Nixon refused.  That is, until Frost offered Nixon $600,000 to perform the interview, and a 20% share of the profits made.  After being absent for years in the public picture, Richard Nixon would finally reappear and discuss his presidency and the problems that made him resign.
 
The interviews took place in March of 1977, and included 12 interviews spanning 4 weeks total.  The interviews dove deep into the darkest topics of Nixon's presidency, and strove to reveal the truth behind the Watergate scandal.  While the interviews did not lead Nixon to admit that he obstructed justice or illegally covered up any part of Watergate, it let the public view the incident from his side.  The interviews were a great success, and still hold the record for the largest television audience for a political interview in the history of television.  A play was made about the famous interviews called Frost/Nixon, and a very famous movie also called Frost/Nixon was made about the interviews in 2008.

"Bring Us Together" Nixon's Comeback

Yesterday in class, we started talking about President Nixon and how he came back from such a devastating defeat to become the president of the United States just years later. I thought it might be helpful to look more in depth in to what made his historical political comeback so successful.

In 1962, Richard Nixon ran against the democratic candidate, Pat Brown, for governor of California. Although he was initially favored to win, being the former vice president and a Californian himself, Nixon lost by a surprising 5%. Extremely frustrated, Nixon retired from politics thinking that his future in the government was hopeless. He moved back to New York with his family and became a lawyer, a job he did not find exciting enough. Then, in the presidential election of 1964 he went around doing "favors" campaigning for the Republican party. This helped him regain popularity by 1968, which just happened to be an election year. Defeating Hurbert Humphrey to become president, Nixon had just pulled off the most famous political comeback to this date.

So what made this comeback possible? I personally think Nixon's "shadiness" in the secret conference with South Vietnam was a smart move from a political stance that helped him win the election. I also believe his "Bring Us Together" campaign slogan and the fact that he was brave enough to come back to politics after his defeat showed Americans that he was the president that they needed to get through the war. Nixon also gained the vote from the "forgotten" Americans, who were not given attention to by the other candidates for their lack of spirit to end the war. 

What other factors helped him win the notorious election?:)

The Watergate Scandal

While watching the documentary about Detente, the narrator mentioned something about a scandal that was the cause of President Nixon’s resignation and I wanted to find out more.

The Watergate Scandal was the most famous political scandal in American history and  led to the resignation of President Nixon so that he could avoid impeachment. The crime began in 1972 with 5 members of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP), which was a fundraising campaign designed to help Nixon be elected for another term . The 5 members of the committee broke into the Democratic Party’s headquarters at Watergate, an office complex in Washington D.C, and were discovered looking through files and attempting to plant listening devices. Their objective was to find evidence that could be used to destroy or embarrass any political opposition facing Nixon, but it clearly backfired as he was forced to resign under threat of impeachment in 1974.

The trials for the burglars were held in 1973 and evidence that put President Nixon in the middle of the affair began to emerge. They claimed that Nixon was trying to cover up his part of the scandal by paying the defendants to lie or neglect to tell the truth. It was later discovered that the president had a tape system in his office that was used to record conversations with his aides and other members of his administration. When asked by the court to supply these tapes as evidence, Nixon refused, making him look even more suspicious and guilty. After the the firing and resignation of many officials who were part of the scandal or refused to obey Nixon’s commands that would make them part of the scandal, the tapes were handed over and revealed that the president knew about the cover up since 1972. Although he did not directly partake in the Watergate Scandal itself, his efforts to cover it up were what led to his downfall and made the American people wary of government corruption.

Movie Review: Thirteen Days

While Mr. Stewart(and some students) love to make random X-Men First Class references regarding the Cuban Missile crisis, there are in fact movies out there that actually have some accurate historical context concerning this topic. The other weekend, I watched the movie Thirteen Days with my dad and we were taken aback by how well this film depicted the Cuban Missile Crisis from the American point of view. Just to recap, the Cuban Missile Crisis was when the Americans found out that the Soviets were installing missiles within the newly communist Cuban island. This made President Kennedy uneasy, because the missiles could potentially hit any major US city(besides Seattle) in a matter of minutes. He ends up taking a "quarantine" approach, basically a blockade, to pressure the Soviets into removing the missiles. While the missiles were eventually taken back to the Soviet Union, the US also agreed in secret to remove their own nuclear warheads from Turkey. 

Even though I watched the movie before we talked about the crisis in class, it was extremely easy to follow and didn't have a lot of scenes distracting from the actual event. At some points however it because slightly comical because of the film maker's actor choice. While in class, I recognized some of the footage in the documentary we were watching, because it had been recreated in the movie. Overall, I would suggest watching Thirteen Days, as it may enhance your overall understanding of the Cuban Missile Crisis:)

The Significance of Communication in Foreign Affairs

Over the past couple days in class, we have been learning about the Cold War and more specifically, the Cuban Missile Crisis.  We touched on aspects that led to certain decisions made by Kennedy and Khrushchev during this time, but one thing that was breezed over was how close the world came to a nuclear war just because of the Soviet and American inability to communicate effectively.

While watching one of the documentaries in class, many people chuckled at the fact that Fidel Castro was irate that he was excluded from the communications between the Soviet Union and the United States; he harangued the Soviet Union for going behind his back and removing the missiles from Cuba.  What Castro refused to accept was that he was a just a pawn in this game.  The Soviet Union really had no interest in Cuba other than to spread communism and have the opportunity to defend themselves if the United States attacked the Soviet Union with their missiles in Turkey.  When Castro realized that his leverage was taken away, he started to flounder and the Cuban threat subsided.  One could argue that the lack of communication between the Soviet Union and Cuba was actually beneficial and the US strategy of using “back channels” was effective because Castro could not try and dissuade the Soviet Union from removing their bombs in Cuba.  The lack of communication between the Soviet Union and the United States, however, could have had devastating effects.

The first misunderstanding spurned from the US’ relocation of nuclear missiles to Turkey(a “donation” to NATO).  The Soviet Union perceived this action as threatening because it seemingly gave the United States first strike capability and because of the Soviet Union’s lack of ICBM’s there would be no successful retaliation.  In effect, the Soviet Union took precautions and gave nuclear missiles to Cuba which was much closer to the United States and allowed for easy access to Washington, D.C., should the US ever attack the Soviet Union.  The United States saw this as an act of aggression, that the Soviet Union was trying to achieve first strike capability when in reality the Soviet Union was trying to protect itself.  The Cuban Missile Crisis only heightened tensions and because both the countries intentions were unclear, a result of the lack of communication, the world nearly experienced a nuclear war.

One cartoon in particular demonstrates the necessity for communication during the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis accurately:

In this cartoon, a group of kids(obviously reflecting the Cold War parties) have gotten themselves “stuck out on a limb.”  It seems that the only way off is by moving single file on the plank toward the safety of the cliff, but the group’s inability to work together ultimately causes the plank to break and all the parties to fall.  This symbolizes the importance of communication and “mutual cooperation” in foreign affairs especially when the topic concerns nuclear warfare.  

A Brief Summary of the Strategies Used During the Civil Rights Movement

In class we went over the different strategies that African-Americans and other influenced minority groups used to achieve certain goals.  For those of you may have been absent or are interested in reviewing those strategies, this post should cover the majority of what we discussed in class and some analysis on why particular strategies were more effective than others.

The primary strategy used by Southerners, those who wanted to keep segregation, was to keep the government and Supreme Court from interfering.  This tactic was effective and pervasive in all Southern towns until African Americans found a new channel to the government, national media.

The first instance of national television being used as a medium of conveying the messages of the Civil Rights movement involved Emmett Till, a young African-American male who was murdered at the age of 14 by two white males.  He was brutally beaten and shot then thrown in a river.  Once his mangled body was recovered, his mother appropriately segued Till into martyrdom by having an open casket funeral for her son which attracted media attention.  Till's mother saw an opportunity to demonstrate the truth about the treatment of African-Americans in the South by showing the white Southerners as the aggressors or the villains on national television.

Another strategy that African-Americans used to get attention was the idea of "sit-ins" in which one would do as the name implies and sit inside a restaurant where "colored" people were not normally allowed to sit.  This idea came as a shock to the white Southerners because they did not know how to react.  Those who were sitting in were abused both verbally and physically by irate white Southerners, but they stayed strong and refused to move.  The main goal was to bring the cameras and make sure that there was coverage of these events otherwise the resistance would be in vain.  An important aspect of these "sit-ins" was that most of them were nonviolent protests, on side of the protesters at least, and this followed Till's mother's strategy of making the white Southerners appear as the aggressors.

In Birmingham, King and many other activists looked to nonviolent and emotional strategies.  It was not uncommon for them to use children as a tool for gaining support; "how dare they arrest children!"  On August 28th, King organized a nonviolent protest in the form of a march which attracted media attention and many new followers.  The white Southerners and police, however, reacted violently and broke the protest by unleashing dogs and hosing down the protesters; the media caught this and the white Southerners were effectively depicted as the "bad guys" in this situation.

Finally, another famous orator and writer, Malcom X, used less orthodox tactics to gain support.  Malcom X believed in "black power" which was not entirely the same thing as King's principles of equality.  Black power entailed that African-Americans become the superior race whereas the white Southerners would become the minority.  This obviously did not go well with the white Southerners and Malcom X resorted to an ineffective violent approach which spurned the Detroit Race Riots.

Well there you have it, the strategies used by prominent Civil Rights Activists in the South.  What do you think was the most effective strategy and why?

Lost Nuclear Bombs: "Broken Arrows"

While watching the "MAD" documentary video last night, something piqued my interests.  The video claimed that there were many nuclear weapons that were lost at sea during the Cold War.  These stray weapons were appropriately dubbed, "broken arrows."

After doing a bit of research on the topic, I found many credible sources that supported this claim, but the locations of the nuclear weapons still remain in dispute.  Many of the articles and reports stated that the warheads lacked "plutonium cores" which significantly lowered the threat they posed to the general public, however, this could have been a lie conceived in order to mollify the already distraught American citizens at the time.  The remainder of the nuclear weapons and nuclear bombs, those that do have plutonium and other radioactive material, have yet to be recovered.  The impact they have on the environment and potentially our safety, assuming they are able to weaponized, seems to merit a considerable amount of concern even years after the incident.  Not to mention that the documentary also stated that the amount of nuclear weapons lost by the Soviet Union is still unknown and probably much larger than that of the United States.  It is astonishing that the government has yet to take the effort to locate this radioactive material in order to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands or even just to keep it as a reminder of how close the US and Soviet Union came to fighting a nuclear war.

Detailed reports, however, were kept of the incidents though they were not disclosed to the general public at the time.  Missions involving the transportation of nuclear warheads usually went awry and the warheads were rarely ever able to be recovered which resulted the myriad "broken arrows" of 1958-1971.

Here is an excerpt from one of the articles that I read detailing one particular "broken arrow" that was mentioned in a lot of the articles I read:

January 24, 1961: Goldsboro, North Carolina
In one of the closest calls in accidental nuclear detonation history, a single safety switch prevented a 20-megaton Mk39 hydrogen bomb from exploding in North Carolina in January 1961. When a B-52 carrying two of the bombs suffered a fuel leak in the wing, the plane exploded and dropped both bombs earthward. The parachute of one bomb deployed, but the other weapon nearly detonated when five of its six safety devices failed and it broke apart upon impact with the ground. While the Air Force recovered the bomb’s plutonium, the thermonuclear stage containing uranium was never found. The Air Force subsequently purchased and fenced off a land easement in the area where officials believe the uranium lies.

If you are curious and want to learn more:
http://www.history.com/news/9-tales-of-broken-arrows-thermonuclear-near-misses-throughout-history

Are you concerned about the amount of stray nuclear material?

"MAD" Documentary

The link for the "MAD" Documentary that's on Edmodo no longer exists, so here is a different link to the same documentary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrWG6CSkpKY

Letter from Birmingham Jail

Recently, Mr. Stewart mentioned Martin Luther King's famous Letter from Birmingham Jail. If any of you haven't read it, here's the link:

http://www.uscrossier.org/pullias/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/king.pdf

King's letter is a response to the letter issued to King by a group of Alabama clergymen in 1963. Here is the link to that letter as well:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-martin-luther-king/

In my English class, we have been talking about what makes these influential speeches and letters so powerful and famous. What is it about the way in which people like King convey their ideas that has such a profound affect on both the audience at the time, and people like us today? In Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, his explicit focus on the audience is a crucial aspect of his writing. Because his principal audience is the Alabama clergymen, King makes many biblical references to prove that although they read the same text, their interpretations are very different. For example, in the beginning, King relates his being in Birmingham because of injustice to the prophets of the eighth century B.C., who “left their villages and carried their ‘thus saith the Lord’ far beyond the boundaries of their home towns”. He goes as far as to even compare himself to the apostle Paul. Like Paul, King “must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid”. While Paul saw that the gospel of Jesus needed to be spread “to the far corners of the Greco Roman world” and did so, King, like Paul, was compelled to “carry the gospel of freedom” beyond his home in Atlanta. With this example, King is justifying his actions of nonviolent protest through the use of the same text, the Bible, that the clergymen, who disapprove of his actions so much, also cherish and live by. This is an intelligent move on King’s part, for he knows that it will be hard for the clergymen to disagree with his justifications since they are based on the teachings of the Bible that both parties hold with the utmost respect. King also takes his audience into account with his focus on portraying his credibility and intelligence. King is cognizant of the fact that the clergymen, who are all white, look down on King through prejudiced eyes as just another lesser African American man. In order for them to take his letter seriously, King makes sure to establish his intelligence. Right off the bat, King shows his credibility and intelligence by stating some of his achievements, such as his position as the “president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state”. With this, the clergymen are essentially forced to see King as a man deserving of the same respect as any white Christian, or at least more respect than they initially had for him. In this combination of displaying his credibility and referencing the Bible, King justifies his arguments in a respectful and effective manner that is in accordance with his peaceful and nonviolent approach to the Civil Rights movement.

I Have a Dream

Today, for my American Lit. class I was required to write a poem about the American dream. I started thinking about Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech. I will admit though I know was it is essentially I had never heard the speech in its entirety. I decide to watch it today. Below is a video of the speech.
The part that struck me the most was around the 11:38 when he said "Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valleyof despair. I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream". King is saying that when you go back the South (the places where there is still deeply rooted racism and hatred) don't think that nothing has changed. That you still will be treated as badly as you were treated before. No, Martin Luther King Jr. says that they should keep on hoping and dreaming for a time when racism and prejudice where cease to exist. To really not give up at all. Also, that in the face of hardships Martin Luther King Jr. still believes in the American dream. The American dream is where all African American are treated equally. That skin color doesn't matter, but a person actions and character do. Martin Luther King Jr.'s idea of the American dream is a different way a person views the American dream. As I always though the American Dream involved find more job opportunities, financial stability, and the right to education.

The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley: Fall 1964

The Free Speech Movement at Berkeley became a catalyst for university protests across the country. Originally fueled by the activism of the Civil Rights Movement(although later manifested in protest to the Vietnam War), the Free Speech movement demanded students’ right to express their political views on their university’s campus. I will focus on the turbulent fall semester of 1964.

            In 1958, Clark Kerr was promoted to university president at Berkeley. Amongst the activism of the times, Kerr banned political activity on campus. In concession, he authorized the use of a strip at Bancroft and Telegraph for political activity, so students so students regularly distributed political literature at this strip. However, upon recognizing in 1964 that the supposed transfer of the land to the city never went through, Kerr prohibited further action. In September 1964, Dean of Students Katherine Towle forbade political action at Bancroft and Telegraph. Upon recognizing that she did not have the power to reverse the ruling, 18 student groups formed the United Front and protested by setting up tables at not only their regular strip, but also in Sproul Plaza. When tablers were summoned to the Dean’s office, 400 students occupied the administration building. The next day, tables were set up yet again, and Berkeley alumnus Jack Weinburg was arrested for denying the police identification. Upon his arrest, 3000 students surrounded the cop car and prevented it from moving for 32 hours. It was not until after another occupation of the administration building (led by Mario Savio) and request of the governor that Kerr agreed to meet with the United Front. On October 2^nd, a pact was signed and students left Sproul Plaza.

            The United Front dispanded and formed the FSM, composed of the Executive Committee (to call the shots) and the Steering Committee (to decide on policies for student groups). The Campus Committee on Political Activity of students, faculty and administration formed in order to come to an agreement on campus policies. After three weeks of negotiation, the committee was unable to come to a consensus about the right of students to advocate illegal off-campus activities. Thus, on November 9^th, tabling in Sproul Plaza restarted under the Steering Committee, which caused division within the FSM. On November 20^th, the Regents proposed to revise the campus restrictions to allow political activity except for solicitation of illegal off campus activities, but also implied that action would be taken against groups that had violated the previous restrictions after September 30^th. However, students were not fuming until the administration sent letters to four student leaders that they had violated university rules with October demonstrations. On December 2^nd, 2000 people invaded the administration building, leading to the arrest of 735 students. After Kerr’s proposals to end the conflict were rejected, a rally in Sproul Plaza was organized, featuring faculty members speaking on behalf of the rights of the students. The next day the Academic Senate voted to end all speech regulations on campus.

Case Study: Ukraine

Ukraine is a country to the west of Russia that borders the Black Sea to the south and Belarus to the north. At the moment, Ukraine is receiving incredible amounts of attention from foreign media news sources because of its recent uprising and the even more recent belligerency against the Russians in what appears to be mounting into a full scale invasion of Ukraine on behalf of the Russians.

How did Ukraine get to where it is now? And, more importantly, how does it connect with United States history?

The modern "nation-state" is a west-European creation that, for most of the history of the world, has been a very locally contained phenomenon in the upper western geography of Europe. Roughly starting with the consolidation of France (in the late 1400's and early 1500's under the rule of the Valois and Bourbon dynasties) and the unification of Britain after the British Civil War, "state-hood" was a loosely defined word that carried little to no meaning in the rest of the world, especially in eastern Europe.

From the fall of the Romans to the rise of the Mongols, eastern Europe was a collection of Germanic and barbaric tribes that battled for loosely defined nets of territory. Before the Mongols swept across Asia and the eastern part of the Caucuses, the Kievan Rus (centered in Kiev - the current capital of Ukraine) became the most powerful and influential confederation in Europe. (I made a video on Russian history for MEHAP last year which explains this all in more detail)

The Kievan Rus had very loose borders, unlike its contemporaries in the west. This stems from cultural differences, but also from the fact that the Kievan Rus' power was somewhat uncontested on its eastern sides and its immediate western borders. When the Mongols came into Europe, the Kievan Rus was completely destroyed and was fragmented into separate duchies and kingdoms. In the end, most of the area around Kiev became part of Galicia, while large parts of the Kievan Rus were divided among the Duchy of Moscow (which would soon become Russia) and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is where the real conflict begins.

From the early 1300's until the late 1600's, "Ukraine" was not a real state. The word "Ukraine" comes from the slavic word ukraina, which means "border." For a while, this is because the Ukraine region of the Kievan Rus was the southern border of the principalities. By the late 1600's, "the Ukraine" was the region around Kiev and to the Crimea, and it served as a mutual border between the Cossacks, the Russians, the Polish and the Turks. During a period called "The Ruin," the four aforementioned powers duked it out for the Ukrainian region, and the result was a victory for no one and for everyone. From the Ruin came the rise of the Crimean Khanate, which remained independent for another 150 years.

European history buffs know, though, that the Crimean Khanate (or any balance in the Crimean region) could not stand the test of Catherine the Great's rapidly expanding empire. In 1774, two years before the American Declaration of Independence, Catherine the Great overtook the Crimean Khanate, as well as a huge chunk of the western Ukrainian region.

Then, a ton of other stuff happened, but the main thing to focus on thus far is this: the Kievan Rus was primarily slavic, and when the Kievan Rus fell, the dominant powers over the Ukrainian region were the Russians and the Tatars. The Ukraine then served as a border between four eastern powers and eventually was mostly consumed by the Russians. Essentially, Ukraine has a TON of different nationalities at this point but is held primarily by Russia.

Nearing WWI, huge nationalist waves were crashing on the shores of eastern Europe. Ukrainian nationalists tried to form a true Ukraine, but failed miserably when a powerful Poland and Russia dominated and split the forming nation into three parts: a Polish part in the west, a Ukrainian middle and a Russian east. During WWI and WWII, Ukraine suffered multiple invasions and vicious population loss. By 1945, though, Ukraine had won its highly desired statehood, and it became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Following brutal treatment from Stalin in a series of ethnic-cleansing efforts to rid the Ukraine of the Tatars and the Turks, Khrushchev desired amiable relations with the Ukrainian SSR and the Russian SFSR. In showing his alliance and trust in the Ukrainian nation, he gave the Crimea, a region of Russia since Catherine the Great's reign, to the Ukraine in 1954. This is where things start to get ugly.

This photo shows the ethnic groups in Ukraine. Crimea is
primarily Russian,  as well as some of the eastern parts of Ukraine.

As you may be able to guess, the Crimea, although now officially Ukrainian, had huge amounts of Russians. When the Soviet Union fell in 1991, there were huge movements in the Crimea for an independence movement that would free the Crimea from Ukraine and give it to Russia. This movement was swiftly crushed.

Flash-forward to 2013 when a huge revolution erupts in Ukraine. This is where Cold War politics come into play. The government at the time of the start of the revolution was very much a remnant of Soviet dominance. Because Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, it was not part of any of the European trading commissions that rose from NATO, notably, Ukraine was not invited to the European Union. In 2013, when Ukraine was close to gaining a spot in the European Union, the Russian peoples in the government and in Ukraine voted against entry into the European Union, which sparked violent protest by the Western-thinking youth generation.

During this period of instability, international powers considered sending troops to Ukraine to make sure the revolution didn't erupt into anything worse. The only one to follow through, though, was the Russian Federation, today, March 1st, which, according to some accounts, as already landed troops in the Crimea.

Now, let's tie this back to US History. The conflict in Ukraine is a result of Cold War politics and history. Putin still considers the Crimea to be a Russian possession. But, we can also see a battle between east and west, between US influence and Russian influence. The government in place in Ukraine was a left-leaning Soviet remnant that kept itself out of a coalition of European nations, the European Union, whose origin is in NATO and thus very American. When a revolution broke out in favor of joining the European Union, waves of pro-Western thought rumbled in the foundations of the current Ukrainian government, and Moscow responded with military action, hoping to rope a region of particular slavic majority (the Crimea) into the Russian Federation to keep it out of the European Union and out of the hands of the West.

The Ukrainian crisis is an example of lasting Cold War conflicts that have yet to be resolved. Only time will tell if Ukraine will become a battle-ground for another cold conflict, or if it will die down... or if it will erupt into World War III.

Russia-Ukraine and the West

A brief and informative article for those who might be interested in the background of what is going on...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/25/ozy-russia-ukraine-cia/5805815/

As well as a focus on an issue that may escape most Americans but is central to the events of this weekend...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/opinion/ukraine-crimea-russia/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Talking about generational history...

If interested read and discuss with your parents...

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-living/ci_25248115/1990s-are-new-1960s