Changes

'''Honors'''

'''Honors'''

2. Debate: were the 1950s more conservative than today?  Political-policy wise, they were more liberal, and understandably, because Democrats had controlled the better part of politics for over 20 years.  However, looking at these political policies, at least two (high taxes and the draft) are probably just left over from WWI and WWII.  The number of Communists in government was high only because Communism in general was “in style.”  And the threat of nuclear war decreased with the not only the installation, but the development of defense strategy along with the decline of the Soviet Union itself.  So, many of these political policies existed more because of the times than because of a political agenda.  Socially speaking, the 1950s were almost definitely more conservative.  Abortion was illegal, contraception was less used, gay rights did not even exist, school prayer remained, and LBJ’s modern “Welfare State” had not been ushered in yet.  Having sex with anyone and whenever you wanted was frowned upon.  However, the 1950s contained the seed of their own destruction.  They were a conservative time, but not due enough to Christian practice and moral awareness.  Instead, their conservatism was more due to societal customs and unwritten rules of conduct, which would inevitably lead to rebellion in a way that true moral understanding would not.

2. '''Debate: were the 1950s more conservative than today?''' Political-policy wise, they were more liberal, and understandably, because Democrats had controlled the better part of politics for over 20 years.  However, looking at these political policies, at least two (high taxes and the draft) are probably just left over from WWI and WWII.  The number of Communists in government was high only because Communism in general was “in style.”  And the threat of nuclear war decreased with the not only the installation, but the development of defense strategy along with the decline of the Soviet Union itself.  So, many of these political policies existed more because of the times than because of a political agenda.  Socially speaking, the 1950s were almost definitely more conservative.  Abortion was illegal, contraception was less used, gay rights did not even exist, school prayer remained, and LBJ’s modern “Welfare State” had not been ushered in yet.  Having sex with anyone and whenever you wanted was frowned upon.  However, the 1950s contained the seed of their own destruction.  They were a conservative time, but not due enough to Christian practice and moral awareness.  Instead, their conservatism was more due to societal customs and unwritten rules of conduct, which would inevitably lead to rebellion in a way that true moral understanding would not.

3. The ERA is just the sort of thing a liberal activist court would love- it provides almost infinite opportunity to legislate from the bench, since innumerable practices could be declared unconstitutional.  The vagueness of the ERA is what makes it sound so good and harmless, but what makes it potentially harmful in the hands of activists.  It means almost nothing, and for that very reason it can be made to mean anything.  Furthermore, the ERA was very politically motivated, and the radical feminists who were the base of its support intended it to be construed to support many things ordinary Americans would never want, or even imagine.         

3. The ERA is just the sort of thing a liberal activist court would love- it provides almost infinite opportunity to legislate from the bench, since innumerable practices could be declared unconstitutional.  The vagueness of the ERA is what makes it sound so good and harmless, but what makes it potentially harmful in the hands of activists.  It means almost nothing, and for that very reason it can be made to mean anything.  Furthermore, the ERA was very politically motivated, and the radical feminists who were the base of its support intended it to be construed to support many things ordinary Americans would never want, or even imagine.         

5.  The Inchon Landing was definitely unconventional.  In the military, operations are often called either a “risk” (somewhat risky) or a “gamble” (extremely risky but with a good payoff if successful).  Due to the risky tides, the need to land safely, (as in any amphibious operation) and the fact that Communists would surround the Americans, it was a gamble.  Was it logical?  Yes.  The Americans faced no better fate being surrounded near Pusan than being surrounded at Inchon.  It goes to show what a bad situation were in, that a gamble operation could hardly be worse than staying where we were!  Did MacArthur being homeschooled, and Truman being public schooled, have anything to do with the situation, or the war in general?  From MacArthur’s end, perhaps.  Being homeschooled can’t hurt in developing the kind of traits he had.  However, to portray Truman as a dumb, jealous (public-schooled) man is not totally accurate; Truman’s ultimate problem with MacArthur was his defiance to the Executive Branch, and in the end, Truman’s firing of MacArthur can be construed as a defense against Marshal Law.

5.  The Inchon Landing was definitely unconventional.  In the military, operations are often called either a “risk” (somewhat risky) or a “gamble” (extremely risky but with a good payoff if successful).  Due to the risky tides, the need to land safely, (as in any amphibious operation) and the fact that Communists would surround the Americans, it was a gamble.  Was it logical?  Yes.  The Americans faced no better fate being surrounded near Pusan than being surrounded at Inchon.  It goes to show what a bad situation were in, that a gamble operation could hardly be worse than staying where we were!  Did MacArthur being homeschooled, and Truman being public schooled, have anything to do with the situation, or the war in general?  From MacArthur’s end, perhaps.  Being homeschooled can’t hurt in developing the kind of traits he had.  However, to portray Truman as a dumb, jealous (public-schooled) man is not totally accurate; Truman’s ultimate problem with MacArthur was his defiance to the Executive Branch, and in the end, Truman’s firing of MacArthur can be construed as a defense against Marshal Law.