J O U R N E Y

PSY173B
You will be required to provide a short group presentation (20-25 minutes) at the end of the semester.

This presentation can be on any approved topic related to class. The topics will be picked at the beginning of the semester and cannot be changed!

This is an oral presentation and will require students to prepare a visual for the class (such as PowerPoint) and a handout to the class. (This cannot be a printout of slides)** Your handout should be creative and useful to the class**.

You need to provide an outline and a reference page to the professor as well. Your outline should look more like abstracts. It should include: group members names, group number and each member of the group should write a small summary about what they will be covering in the presentation.

There should be only one outline for the entire group so work together! In addition, your outline should clearly state who contributed what to the group. You are required to use a total of 5 professional references (total for the group) one of which can be your book.

You will be graded on the overall professionalism of your presentation, your ability to effectively communicate your topic, organization of material, and delivery.

You will be deducted points if you exceed the time limit as well. Keeping your presentation within the time frame will require organization, rehearsal and working collaboratively with your group members. Being able to present material in an effective way is a skill that you will likely utilize again in the future and in your career.

I expect that you will take this assignment as practice for the future J We will discuss this more in detail during class time. Your group will be randomly selected to present during the "presentation days" listed on the syllabus.

Sent from my iPhone

[CLASS HAD QUIZ TODAY]
Sanctuary city - does not enforce federal immigration law [Gulianni]
The dream act
Amnesty - Liberals
Popular initiative
Proposition 187
Unskilled labor

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM - freedom
Limit power of gov • protect indiv fr
Authority of government based on popular consent.

MODERN LIBERALISM
economic & social components
Min wage•health ins•unemp ins•safety•environment•retirement•ADA•regulated markets ** women's rights• religious freedom•gay rights•civil rights•drug de-criminalize•correction policy rehab not punish•oppose death penalty•easy welfare•

1.6 B for prisons vs 200M for comcol

MODERN CONSERVATISM
ECON - small gov•less regs•oppose min wage•workplace safety•environ protect free market balanced budget low taxes privatized ss reduce welfare spending
SOC - oppose abortion support death penalty oppose welfare, gay rights, women's rights, affirmative action•make divorce harder•correction-punishment•

The Four Cities Another way of understanding these four pillars is to see them in terms of the historical origins of the conservative tradition. Russell Kirk, who is probably the preeminent conservative scholar of the twentieth century, often spoke of the four cities in which the foundations of Western civilization—and so, of conservatism—were laid: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London. Our own Philadelphia in the late eighteenth century can then be seen to represent the culmination of a great tradition.

The first city is Jerusalem, where the concept of a transcendent order originated—the understanding that true law comes from God and that God is the source of order and justice. From Jerusalem came one of the most essential ideas of conservatism—that man does not have all the answers, that there is a power greater than man to which we owe our lives and everything that is good. The Hebrews in the Old Testament taught that God made a covenant or compact with His people; He decreed laws by which they should live, and from that revelation we eventually developed modern ethics and modern law. The idea of a compact forms the very basis of our modern political order.

The second city is Athens, where the ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle, described the basis of the social order—what was required for people to live together and to thrive in society. Ethics and politics are, they believed, at the root of man’s existence: ethics is what establishes one’s character, and politics is the means by which human beings can achieve the good life. Aristotle, whose writings have had a profound influence on conservative thought, understood the needs of the individual and his relationship to community. Man is a political animal, he taught, and only recognizes his talents and how to use them for the common good if he is part of a community. The Greek philosophers, however, added nothing to the argument for liberty; in fact, Greek philosophy tended to advocate total subjugation of the individual by the state.

The third city in this progression is Rome, where we learn of the highest form of government, the republic, and the use of the separation of powers and checks and balances for the control of political power. Rome also provided the very idea of the rule of law—how law was necessary to preserve order and liberty, and how it needed to be reliable and consistent. Until the Roman republic collapsed, Roman statesmen such as Cato and Cicero also taught us about virtue as a necessary restraint on the passions of men, vital for the preservation of liberty. The Roman Empire, which followed the republic, taught little about individual liberty, of course, but a great deal about the use, and abuse, of power.

Finally there is London, where the teachings that helped to establish the foundations of modern conservatism stretched from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. The foundation was laid by the Magna Carta in 1215 and evolved into the concept of the common law and the idea that the law applies equally to all, whether the king or the lowliest commoner. The Magna Carta and the common law also taught the concept of the permanence of the law—the principle of the supremacy of law, meaning that an enduring law exists and must be obeyed by all men.

- See more here
===================

By John C. Goodman

In the history of politics, there is only one fundamental, abiding issue: It is individualism vs. collectivism. Do individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness, as Thomas Jefferson thought and as the Declaration of Independence deemed self-evident? Or do we have an obligation to live our lives for the community or the state, as most societies have claimed throughout most of history?

Yet if this is the paramount political issue, why is it not forthrightly debated in presidential elections and in other contests for public office? The reason is that American political debates tend to be dominated by modern liberalism and modern conservatism — approaches to politics that are properly called “sociologies” rather than “ideologies.”

Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

PSY173C

PSY173B

POL112E

Blog Archive

Quiklinks