1.
A) one provision in the bill of rights to support those who influence politics would be when the first amendment gave the right to free speech, and expression. It allows a man to make his voice heard, and his opinion with it. Another way that it allowed political participation was in the second amendment, they gave citizens the right to bare arms, and consequently, revolt against the government should anything go too far off kilter.
B)grassroots: by making usage of the trampled masses, interest groups make their voices heard, because they stand with hundred thousand other voices.
Lobbying: by Lobbying, a group makes certain that those in power hear them, by attempting to change policy, within the houses themselves.
Litigation: by suing those who do things that go against their goals, they make an example, for future generations, and setting legal precedent
C) one particular regulation on interest groups keeps interest groups from openly bribing government officials.
2.
A)the merit system has no real enforcement as it expects individuals to simply abide by their own moral, and ethical codes.
B)due to the structure of the bureaucratic system, bureaucracies are granted a modicum of independence so long as they continue to exist within the guidelines, which proves extremely easy, as they were designed with these in mind.
Due to the complexity of the public policy problems, there needs to be some leeway for bureaucracies, so that they can adapt to previously unknown variables.
C) congress: congress can exercise their control of budget oversight, to ensure that the bureaucracy does what the congress desires them to do
Courts: when a case is brought into court that concerns an agency, the courts possess the power to rule against them, and consequently, have a modicum of control over bureaucracies
Interest groups: an interest group can use their positions in congress, and their ability to bring cases to court, so as to piggyback off of the power which congress, and the courts have over the bureaucracies.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Thursday, May 29, 2014
essay 19/20
19
Two ways that the media has pushed campaigns to a more candidate centered matter is by cramming talk show jokes, and SNL skits down our throats. The candidates themselves contribute to this process by appearing on these talk shows; and hosting endless interviews, and press conferences.
20
The AMA or American Medical Association largely targets policy relating to healthcare, cost of healthcare, and medical insurance, which they attempt to influence while it is in the Senate. The AMA are, in large part, doctors, and people generally tend to have respect for doctors, which the AMA banks on to have Senators vote in their favor. Doctors are generally very well payed, and use their funds to fund the AMA, who use the funds in much the same way that other interest groups do, to get their own way.
Two ways that the media has pushed campaigns to a more candidate centered matter is by cramming talk show jokes, and SNL skits down our throats. The candidates themselves contribute to this process by appearing on these talk shows; and hosting endless interviews, and press conferences.
20
The AMA or American Medical Association largely targets policy relating to healthcare, cost of healthcare, and medical insurance, which they attempt to influence while it is in the Senate. The AMA are, in large part, doctors, and people generally tend to have respect for doctors, which the AMA banks on to have Senators vote in their favor. Doctors are generally very well payed, and use their funds to fund the AMA, who use the funds in much the same way that other interest groups do, to get their own way.
Earth Day Blog Post
The Sierra Club is one of the most influential, and powerful grass roots organizations in the nation. They did everything in their power to ensure that the Grand Canyon remained pure, and untainted. They attempted, and succeeded, in stopping a dam from being built in the Grand Canyon, which would have destroyed the natural landscape which so many people enjoy.
In the 1970's, there was a major increase in care for the environment, with a great deal of focus on chemical plants that might cause damage to children. Most focus during this section of the video was on the group of parents from Love Canal who fought a crusade against big chemical companies. While they were not 100% successful, they made a big, and meaningful change.
In the following section, we were shown about the more... militaristic side of environmental consciousness. All that I was thinking while watching this, was the episode of South Park where Stan took over the ship from the show Whale Wars, and declared war on the Japanese.
The following section payed attention to rubber tappers, as the center of the fight to save the amazon rain forest. Using them as a medium, they were able to show how some attempt to destroy the beauty and magnificence of the rain forest.
The final section of the video payed attention to Climate Change, and how some don't believe in it. Despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven. In a recent study, they saw that 3% of Americans don't believe in climate change, despite it being a fact; that's like holding a survey like "which is bigger, 5 or 15" or "is Obama black".
People seem to be more interested in the topic of "Global Warming" than the much broader term of "Climate Change", and despite what might be thought about this, pollers often provided different answers based on which term was used. Scientists at Yale recently stated that Climate Change, and Global Warming “are often not synonymous — they mean different things to different
people, and activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and
behaviors.”
Friday, May 23, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
Health care blog posts
UK:
8.3 % GDP
premium: payed by government
No co-pays for most services, some for dentist, and glasses; elderly and children are exempt
socialized medicine: government pays medical expenses
funded through taxes, administrative costs are low
still bears issues of socialist medical care; long waits, little choice
Japan:
8% GDP
deductible: $280, employers pay more than 50%
co-pay: 30% of procedure, maximum roof based on income
all required to have health insurance
some of the best health statistics in the world
very efficiently done, but hospitals are largely in the red
Germany:
10.7% GDP
premium: $750 monthly, tied to patients income
co-pay: 10 euros every three months, some exempt
Uses social insurance: all are required to have insurance
cannot refuse patients based on pre-existing conditions
single payment leaves doctors feeling underpayed
Taiwan:
6.3% GDP
premium: $650 for a family of four
pays for 20% of medications
All must have insurance, but there is only one provider
Switzerland:
11.6% GDP
premium: $750 monthly
co-pay: 10% of service
all are required to have insurance
shows that universal healthcare can actually work properly
The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world
Second Part:
USA is almost equal to Japan, and UK combined, which is surprising considering how many overweight, and otherwise unhealthy people we have in our nation. Considering the amount of pride that the Swiss government puts into their healthcare, one would expect it to take up more of their funds.
If I were to choose which system I would like to partake in, I would choose the Japanese system. I has a good, low balance in amount that I personally would need to pay.
8.3 % GDP
premium: payed by government
No co-pays for most services, some for dentist, and glasses; elderly and children are exempt
socialized medicine: government pays medical expenses
funded through taxes, administrative costs are low
still bears issues of socialist medical care; long waits, little choice
Japan:
8% GDP
deductible: $280, employers pay more than 50%
co-pay: 30% of procedure, maximum roof based on income
all required to have health insurance
some of the best health statistics in the world
very efficiently done, but hospitals are largely in the red
Germany:
10.7% GDP
premium: $750 monthly, tied to patients income
co-pay: 10 euros every three months, some exempt
Uses social insurance: all are required to have insurance
cannot refuse patients based on pre-existing conditions
single payment leaves doctors feeling underpayed
Taiwan:
6.3% GDP
premium: $650 for a family of four
pays for 20% of medications
All must have insurance, but there is only one provider
Switzerland:
11.6% GDP
premium: $750 monthly
co-pay: 10% of service
all are required to have insurance
shows that universal healthcare can actually work properly
The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world
Second Part:
USA is almost equal to Japan, and UK combined, which is surprising considering how many overweight, and otherwise unhealthy people we have in our nation. Considering the amount of pride that the Swiss government puts into their healthcare, one would expect it to take up more of their funds.
If I were to choose which system I would like to partake in, I would choose the Japanese system. I has a good, low balance in amount that I personally would need to pay.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Essay 15/ 16
15
The Government gives certain people personal financial benefits, through programs referred to as entitlement programs. One of the largest entitlement programs is Social Security, which provides for the elderly, primarily through a tax, separate from the main body of taxes. If Social Security continues as it does, then eventually, one individual will be financially supporting a half dozen senior citizens. With an increase in life expectancy, but no matching increase in age requirement, more people are collecting Social Security; and as such, the amount of money payed to individuals is decreased, and the amount payed by individuals in the community increases exponentially. If we were to increase the age requirement for Social Security, then most of these issues would be solved, as more people would die (from natural causes) before reaching the age required, and fewer people would be collecting Social Security, thus decreasing the amount individuals need to pay to support the elderly, as one beneficiary of Social Security would be supported by half a dozen tax payers.
16
Two reasons why Congress grants policy making abilities to government agencies are that: Congress does not have the time (nor the ability to agree) to go over each, and every little thing that might occur, so they grant leeway to federal agencies, to regulate themselves (in part), and make several of their own policies; the second reason is that such agencies are more educated in their particular fields than the members of congress, who would be unable to make an educated decision on the of (let's say) extracting valuable information from a suspected terrorist. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one organization that is allowed legislative freedom by Congress, and they exercise this freedom by creating, and enforcing laws that are meant to protect the environment. Two ways that Congress makes sure these organizations follow legislative intent is that they have committees which look into things that might be going wrong, or possible misuses of power; they also have a habit of putting people into court when they do these things.
The Government gives certain people personal financial benefits, through programs referred to as entitlement programs. One of the largest entitlement programs is Social Security, which provides for the elderly, primarily through a tax, separate from the main body of taxes. If Social Security continues as it does, then eventually, one individual will be financially supporting a half dozen senior citizens. With an increase in life expectancy, but no matching increase in age requirement, more people are collecting Social Security; and as such, the amount of money payed to individuals is decreased, and the amount payed by individuals in the community increases exponentially. If we were to increase the age requirement for Social Security, then most of these issues would be solved, as more people would die (from natural causes) before reaching the age required, and fewer people would be collecting Social Security, thus decreasing the amount individuals need to pay to support the elderly, as one beneficiary of Social Security would be supported by half a dozen tax payers.
16
Two reasons why Congress grants policy making abilities to government agencies are that: Congress does not have the time (nor the ability to agree) to go over each, and every little thing that might occur, so they grant leeway to federal agencies, to regulate themselves (in part), and make several of their own policies; the second reason is that such agencies are more educated in their particular fields than the members of congress, who would be unable to make an educated decision on the of (let's say) extracting valuable information from a suspected terrorist. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one organization that is allowed legislative freedom by Congress, and they exercise this freedom by creating, and enforcing laws that are meant to protect the environment. Two ways that Congress makes sure these organizations follow legislative intent is that they have committees which look into things that might be going wrong, or possible misuses of power; they also have a habit of putting people into court when they do these things.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Essay 13 &14
Essay 13
Congressional reapportionment is the process by which the government redistributes the population of the congressional districts, based on information taken during the census. It is important to states because it can potentially change the balance of power in Congress, and remove a congressman from a liberal state, and give the seat to a conservative one.
Redistricing is a very similar process, but instead of changing which state gets seats in congress, it re-draws the lines of the congressional districts.
Gerrymandering can allow a congressman, and his aides to choose who will vote for them, by choosing/ realigning the districts in their favor. Another congressmen use Gerrymandering is to help other people with similar interests wind up getting elected in a highly malleable district which would vote for them.
One limit the supreme court has placed on redistricting is that districts must be equally populated, or as close as one can get to equal. They have also forbidden it from limiting minority voting strength.
Essay 14
Mandatory Spending: Federal programs which have been established by Congress. This limits the president's power in Congress because there is no working around Mandatory Spending, so the president needs to compromise, and give in to congressional decisions on Mandatory Spending.
Lame Duck: An official who has not been re-elected, and is simply waiting until his replacement, who was elected comes in to take his position. Lame Duck's limit presidential power because they no longer need to worry about re-election, and simply vote as they believe, often in opposition to the president.
Congressional reapportionment is the process by which the government redistributes the population of the congressional districts, based on information taken during the census. It is important to states because it can potentially change the balance of power in Congress, and remove a congressman from a liberal state, and give the seat to a conservative one.
Redistricing is a very similar process, but instead of changing which state gets seats in congress, it re-draws the lines of the congressional districts.
Gerrymandering can allow a congressman, and his aides to choose who will vote for them, by choosing/ realigning the districts in their favor. Another congressmen use Gerrymandering is to help other people with similar interests wind up getting elected in a highly malleable district which would vote for them.
One limit the supreme court has placed on redistricting is that districts must be equally populated, or as close as one can get to equal. They have also forbidden it from limiting minority voting strength.
Essay 14
Mandatory Spending: Federal programs which have been established by Congress. This limits the president's power in Congress because there is no working around Mandatory Spending, so the president needs to compromise, and give in to congressional decisions on Mandatory Spending.
Lame Duck: An official who has not been re-elected, and is simply waiting until his replacement, who was elected comes in to take his position. Lame Duck's limit presidential power because they no longer need to worry about re-election, and simply vote as they believe, often in opposition to the president.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Oil Spill annotated bibliography
"The Spill"
Frontline
Frontline, February 25, 2013
Internet
3/17/14
In the last ten years, BP has rapidly expanded it's production, and refining of oil; and also it's brand recognition. Despite their new size, or maybe because of it, failed to meet safety regulations, and caused a number of deaths. Several reputable sources say that the company itself was to blame, as opposed to individual workers. The Texas refinery incident, and the Alaska incident point to something seriously wrong with the structure of BP.
"Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster"
CBS News
CBS News, May 16, 2010
internet
3/17/14
The destroyed oil rig is still spewing oil; no one knows exactly how much, but there are at least several million gallons. Eleven men were killed in the explosion that caused the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. A source says that the malfunction of the rig was guaranteed, as it had been building up for several weeks.
"BP Oil Spill Conviction: One Down- More To Go"
The Seattle Times
The Seattle Times, March 17, 2014
Internet
3/17/14
Former BP employee was found guilty for obstructing justice/ destroying evidence that would have proven that the oil spill was worse than BP executives were claiming. This is the first of (hopefully) four convictions for several people involved with the BP oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico. Kurt Mix (the convicted) deleted several hundred text messages from his phone, and faces a maximum sentence of twenty years with a $250,000 fine. The explosion caused eleven deaths, and an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the water.
Frontline
Frontline, February 25, 2013
Internet
3/17/14
In the last ten years, BP has rapidly expanded it's production, and refining of oil; and also it's brand recognition. Despite their new size, or maybe because of it, failed to meet safety regulations, and caused a number of deaths. Several reputable sources say that the company itself was to blame, as opposed to individual workers. The Texas refinery incident, and the Alaska incident point to something seriously wrong with the structure of BP.
"Blowout: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster"
CBS News
CBS News, May 16, 2010
internet
3/17/14
The destroyed oil rig is still spewing oil; no one knows exactly how much, but there are at least several million gallons. Eleven men were killed in the explosion that caused the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. A source says that the malfunction of the rig was guaranteed, as it had been building up for several weeks.
"BP Oil Spill Conviction: One Down- More To Go"
The Seattle Times
The Seattle Times, March 17, 2014
Internet
3/17/14
Former BP employee was found guilty for obstructing justice/ destroying evidence that would have proven that the oil spill was worse than BP executives were claiming. This is the first of (hopefully) four convictions for several people involved with the BP oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico. Kurt Mix (the convicted) deleted several hundred text messages from his phone, and faces a maximum sentence of twenty years with a $250,000 fine. The explosion caused eleven deaths, and an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the water.
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Essay 12
A divided government has a reputation of not getting much done, and the lack of accomplishment in our government generally tends to decrease the trust that the general police has in their government; a divided government is when on party controls the house, and the other controls one (or both) houses.
The increased amount of campaign donations, and the increase of money spent on campaigns has led people to see the presidential (and all other) elections as nothing more than money fights between rich, old, white men. Knowing how rich the candidates are, and how flippantly they spend their money, makes the general populace view them as a separate species, and lose the little bit of trust they had for the candidates.
One consequence of the decline in trust in government is that fewer people care about politics, and as such, it slants the elections, thus resulting in worse candidates winning elections. Another possible consequence of a lack of governmental trust would be the rise of a movement who (mistakenly) believe themselves more capable of creating a government than centuries of experience, and trial and error; their government would fail quickly, due to the fact that they didn't have a plan, simply a desire to tear down what came before.
The increased amount of campaign donations, and the increase of money spent on campaigns has led people to see the presidential (and all other) elections as nothing more than money fights between rich, old, white men. Knowing how rich the candidates are, and how flippantly they spend their money, makes the general populace view them as a separate species, and lose the little bit of trust they had for the candidates.
One consequence of the decline in trust in government is that fewer people care about politics, and as such, it slants the elections, thus resulting in worse candidates winning elections. Another possible consequence of a lack of governmental trust would be the rise of a movement who (mistakenly) believe themselves more capable of creating a government than centuries of experience, and trial and error; their government would fail quickly, due to the fact that they didn't have a plan, simply a desire to tear down what came before.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Essay 11
Two patterns that can be found within the graph are that House
incumbents walk away victorious much more often than Senate incumbents;
and that the number of House incumbent victories is slowly rising, over
time.
One possible reason why incumbents usually win are that people trust already elected officials, and believe that they won't mess up too badly, based on their track-records; if the incumbent didn't have a major scandal, then their constituents continue to trust the incumbent, and return them to office, on the same ideals, and platforms they won with the first time. Another possible reason is that the same people who voted for them the first time, vote for them again, and due to their superior numbers, the incumbents win; if the majority party in one particular area is republican, then they shall generally vote for the republican candidate, thus the incumbent continues to win the republican vote over, and over again, so as to keep their position.
A possible consequence of the incumbency system in the Unites States is that by continuing to re-elect the same people to Congress, and the Senate is that no fresh idea's will enter the political system, and nothing will ever change; we need game-changers to win elections, and change the political landscape.
One possible reason why incumbents usually win are that people trust already elected officials, and believe that they won't mess up too badly, based on their track-records; if the incumbent didn't have a major scandal, then their constituents continue to trust the incumbent, and return them to office, on the same ideals, and platforms they won with the first time. Another possible reason is that the same people who voted for them the first time, vote for them again, and due to their superior numbers, the incumbents win; if the majority party in one particular area is republican, then they shall generally vote for the republican candidate, thus the incumbent continues to win the republican vote over, and over again, so as to keep their position.
A possible consequence of the incumbency system in the Unites States is that by continuing to re-elect the same people to Congress, and the Senate is that no fresh idea's will enter the political system, and nothing will ever change; we need game-changers to win elections, and change the political landscape.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Meth. Lots, and lots of Meth.
"The Meth Epidemic"
Frontline
Frontline, August 15, 2011
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/synopsis.html
Starting in the 1970s, biker gangs started making Methamphetamine, and from there it spread. Since then, it has grown has more potent, and powerful. Despite increased restriction on ephedrine, and pseudo-ephedrine, Meth cookers still have the ability to create copious amounts of Methamphetamine, because there is still the potential of people who are more than willing to buy massive amounts of cold medicine to sell to those who are cooking Methamphetamine. Currently, there are several states that have decided to return ephedrine, and pseudo-ephedrine into prescription medications, thus removing the possibility of Meth cooks getting a vital ingredient of their recipes.
"Big Pharma and Meth Cooks Agree: Keep Cold Meds Over The Counter"
NPR
NPR, September 26, 2013
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/26/226476602/big-pharma-and-meth-cooks-agree-keep-cold-meds-over-the-counter
Opens with a comment about AMC's Breaking Bad. Meth is dangerous to the Cooks, and the communities they live in; mostly do to the corrosive, and dangerous materials used to cook Methamphetamine. A reporter named Jonah Engle is based in Montreal, and has written for a number of various publications, on the topic of Meth, and the drug trade centered around it. An extremely easy way of producing Methamphetamine is the "shake and bake" method, which is mixing ephedrine, or pseudo-ephedrine, and mixing it in with various other crushed up chemicals.
"Real Life Crime Echo 'Breaking Bad'"
USA Today
USA Today, September 19, 2013
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/09/19/breaking-bad-real-life-crimes/2782635/
This entire article was devoted to how the AMC series "Breaking Bad" influenced the real life crime community. Since the show aired in 2008, people have tried to copy the material shown, mostly by cooking Meth, and using the intimidation, and violent methods portrayed in their criminal lives. In June of 2012, a man named Jason Hart strangled his girlfriend to death, and attempted to dissolve her body in sulfuric acid. In 2010 the police in Kansas City arrested a number of Meth dealers who had tinted their Meth with blue food coloring, to imitate the "Blue Sky" strand of Meth made by Walter White in the hit AMC series, supposedly it sold 50% better than it's colorless cousin; but polices main concern was with the possibility of a child finding it, and mistaking it for candy. Possibly following the example of the show's protagonist, Chemistry teacher Walter White, a number of teachers were arrested for Meth possession, and dealing; and to further increase the similarities he had stage three cancer at the time of his arrest. Several hundred televisions were destroyed in prisons, by convicts lighting cigarettes with power cords, much like Walter White used the same method to cut through plastic zip-ties.
Frontline
Frontline, August 15, 2011
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/etc/synopsis.html
Starting in the 1970s, biker gangs started making Methamphetamine, and from there it spread. Since then, it has grown has more potent, and powerful. Despite increased restriction on ephedrine, and pseudo-ephedrine, Meth cookers still have the ability to create copious amounts of Methamphetamine, because there is still the potential of people who are more than willing to buy massive amounts of cold medicine to sell to those who are cooking Methamphetamine. Currently, there are several states that have decided to return ephedrine, and pseudo-ephedrine into prescription medications, thus removing the possibility of Meth cooks getting a vital ingredient of their recipes.
"Big Pharma and Meth Cooks Agree: Keep Cold Meds Over The Counter"
NPR
NPR, September 26, 2013
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.npr.org/2013/09/26/226476602/big-pharma-and-meth-cooks-agree-keep-cold-meds-over-the-counter
Opens with a comment about AMC's Breaking Bad. Meth is dangerous to the Cooks, and the communities they live in; mostly do to the corrosive, and dangerous materials used to cook Methamphetamine. A reporter named Jonah Engle is based in Montreal, and has written for a number of various publications, on the topic of Meth, and the drug trade centered around it. An extremely easy way of producing Methamphetamine is the "shake and bake" method, which is mixing ephedrine, or pseudo-ephedrine, and mixing it in with various other crushed up chemicals.
"Real Life Crime Echo 'Breaking Bad'"
USA Today
USA Today, September 19, 2013
Internet
2/7/14
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2013/09/19/breaking-bad-real-life-crimes/2782635/
This entire article was devoted to how the AMC series "Breaking Bad" influenced the real life crime community. Since the show aired in 2008, people have tried to copy the material shown, mostly by cooking Meth, and using the intimidation, and violent methods portrayed in their criminal lives. In June of 2012, a man named Jason Hart strangled his girlfriend to death, and attempted to dissolve her body in sulfuric acid. In 2010 the police in Kansas City arrested a number of Meth dealers who had tinted their Meth with blue food coloring, to imitate the "Blue Sky" strand of Meth made by Walter White in the hit AMC series, supposedly it sold 50% better than it's colorless cousin; but polices main concern was with the possibility of a child finding it, and mistaking it for candy. Possibly following the example of the show's protagonist, Chemistry teacher Walter White, a number of teachers were arrested for Meth possession, and dealing; and to further increase the similarities he had stage three cancer at the time of his arrest. Several hundred televisions were destroyed in prisons, by convicts lighting cigarettes with power cords, much like Walter White used the same method to cut through plastic zip-ties.
Monday, February 3, 2014
NoKoBloPo (North Korean Blog Post)
In 1945, Soviet troops began to occupy Korea, but withdrew three years later, when they founded the "Democratic" Peoples "Republic" of Korea was founded. Shortly thereafter, the south broke off from the north, prompting a military response from the north. The war is then ended by an armistice agreement in 1953. Over the 60's, the nation began to industrialize. In 1981 both North and South Korea agree to join the United Nations, which, in the eyes of the general people marked a noticeable turning point in the nation's path.
In 1992, the North Korean government allows members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to enter their borders, but refused them access to sites where it was rumored North Korea was testing atomic weaponry. In 1994, Kim Il Sung, leader of North Korea, passed on, but in 1998, he was named as "Eternal President," despite already being dead; at this time, his son's (Kim Jong Il) power is extended to also make him head of state. In December of 2011, Kim Jong Il died, leaving the throne open to his son, Kim Jong Un, who has taken power, and ruled ever since.
Currently, Kim Jong Un is the leader of the "Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea," and he is beloved by his people, despite his youth. There have been floods, and famine in North Korea since 2011, but the supplies we granted them do not seem to be doing much good at the current time, based on the fact that they asked for more supplies in August of 2012.
Due to the almost cult-like devotion of the people of Korea, I. Do not believe that any kind of regime change will be possible for a long time. And even then, the change will simply be of dictator, and it will, in theory be a long time until there is a change in governmental system. A change in regime is even less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle.
In 1992, the North Korean government allows members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to enter their borders, but refused them access to sites where it was rumored North Korea was testing atomic weaponry. In 1994, Kim Il Sung, leader of North Korea, passed on, but in 1998, he was named as "Eternal President," despite already being dead; at this time, his son's (Kim Jong Il) power is extended to also make him head of state. In December of 2011, Kim Jong Il died, leaving the throne open to his son, Kim Jong Un, who has taken power, and ruled ever since.
Currently, Kim Jong Un is the leader of the "Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea," and he is beloved by his people, despite his youth. There have been floods, and famine in North Korea since 2011, but the supplies we granted them do not seem to be doing much good at the current time, based on the fact that they asked for more supplies in August of 2012.
Due to the almost cult-like devotion of the people of Korea, I. Do not believe that any kind of regime change will be possible for a long time. And even then, the change will simply be of dictator, and it will, in theory be a long time until there is a change in governmental system. A change in regime is even less likely than a camel passing through the eye of a needle.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Essay 10
The fundamental goal of interest groups are to attempt to get
legislation passed, which is in favor of one of the desires of an
interest group. Such as, the NRA will do everything in their power to
ensure looser gun regulations, and ensuring that anybody who desires one
has an opportunity to receive a firearm; and the Susan B. Anthony List
attempts to end abortion.
The goals of the major parties generally stand in stark opposition to one another, with both sides attempting to make their "ideal" governmental system. The Republicans, generally considered to be conservative, wish to end abortion, allow for greater freedom of weaponry, desire smaller national government, and more power, and rights to the individual, while still supporting "big business." The Democrats on the other hand, generally liberal, stand for pro-choice, equal rights, and more power to the federal government.
There are a number of ways in which interest groups help to support their party of choice. One of these methods is donating money to a particular candidate, or their party, in attempts to get this individual elected into an office of power. Another way interest groups support parties is in attempting to endear this party to the American public.
When interest groups give money to a particular candidate, they have multiple ways in which to do this. There is directly donating to their campaign, which will allow for ads that directly say "vote for me," and puts someone who shares their view into power. The other way is through the usage of Issue ads, which are advertisements that do not directly endorse a particular candidate, but instead attempt to convince the people watching to vote based on a particular issue, such as guns, abortion, or taxes.
The goals of the major parties generally stand in stark opposition to one another, with both sides attempting to make their "ideal" governmental system. The Republicans, generally considered to be conservative, wish to end abortion, allow for greater freedom of weaponry, desire smaller national government, and more power, and rights to the individual, while still supporting "big business." The Democrats on the other hand, generally liberal, stand for pro-choice, equal rights, and more power to the federal government.
There are a number of ways in which interest groups help to support their party of choice. One of these methods is donating money to a particular candidate, or their party, in attempts to get this individual elected into an office of power. Another way interest groups support parties is in attempting to endear this party to the American public.
When interest groups give money to a particular candidate, they have multiple ways in which to do this. There is directly donating to their campaign, which will allow for ads that directly say "vote for me," and puts someone who shares their view into power. The other way is through the usage of Issue ads, which are advertisements that do not directly endorse a particular candidate, but instead attempt to convince the people watching to vote based on a particular issue, such as guns, abortion, or taxes.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Economic reform essay
There have been a number of economic reform discussed by the House of Representatives, and the Senate over the past several years. These reforms work in both directions, decreasing donations in politics, and increasing the amount that can be donated. The elimination of soft money, and the raising of limits on individual campaign contributions have both been discussed.
Soft money, AKA the endless anonymous donations to a campaign, or candidate, often through the proxy of a Special Interest Group. Some of the possible reasons in favor of eliminating soft money are general arguments against corruption in the government, and more specific complaints against big business holding the government by the metaphorical throat. Some arguments cast in favor of keeping the usage of soft money are that removing it would violate free speech, and that it would take away the right of the people to spend their money as they wish. In essence, it would be difficult to eliminate soft money, due to those defending it, but there are still those attempting to abolish the practice.
Raising the limits on individual campaign spending would allow for those in power to be granted more funding by others in power, who desire their views to be heard/ seen in a political environment. A reason to support the increase in donations, is that humans, especially American's, have the right to say, and do what they want, and campaign contributions allow for you to express your opinion by assisting someone with the same ideals to be put into political power. A good reason to stand against the increase in individual campaign contributions is that by increasing the amount of money that could be donated, they would increase the amount of power lying in the hands of the wealthy, even those whose views and opinions are purely self beneficial.
Citizens United had a case, which reached the Supreme Court; the trial decided that it was against first constitution rights to restrict the amount of money that can be donated by individual spending.
Soft money, AKA the endless anonymous donations to a campaign, or candidate, often through the proxy of a Special Interest Group. Some of the possible reasons in favor of eliminating soft money are general arguments against corruption in the government, and more specific complaints against big business holding the government by the metaphorical throat. Some arguments cast in favor of keeping the usage of soft money are that removing it would violate free speech, and that it would take away the right of the people to spend their money as they wish. In essence, it would be difficult to eliminate soft money, due to those defending it, but there are still those attempting to abolish the practice.
Raising the limits on individual campaign spending would allow for those in power to be granted more funding by others in power, who desire their views to be heard/ seen in a political environment. A reason to support the increase in donations, is that humans, especially American's, have the right to say, and do what they want, and campaign contributions allow for you to express your opinion by assisting someone with the same ideals to be put into political power. A good reason to stand against the increase in individual campaign contributions is that by increasing the amount of money that could be donated, they would increase the amount of power lying in the hands of the wealthy, even those whose views and opinions are purely self beneficial.
Citizens United had a case, which reached the Supreme Court; the trial decided that it was against first constitution rights to restrict the amount of money that can be donated by individual spending.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Interest Groups
Part A:
Litigation: The process of taking legal action. Litigation could help an interest group by creating controversy about a certain candidate, and causing people to doubt him, and vote for the other candidate. Also, it can be used to fight laws that a group considers to be unjust.
Campaign contributions: By donating money to a candidate, or, more importantly, their campaign, they give a candidate the funding required to create positive publicity in favor of their candidate of choice.
Grassroots lobbying: The process of attempting to indirectly influence legislature not through the Senator or Congressman, but through their constituents. It also covers more traditional lobbying tactics of attempting to sway political votes.
Part B:
American Medical Association: Litigation. It fights against laws it believes are unjust in court.
Sierra Club: Grassroots lobbying. The Sierra club is one of the oldest interest groups in the history of the United States, and it specializes in grassroots lobbying.
NRA: Specializing in Lobbying, the NRA is one of the largest, and most powerful lobbying groups in the county, it is also one of the oldest. It's membership is over 5,000,000.
NAACP: Litigation: The NAACP repeatedly went to court to defend civil rights issues. Especially for African Americans.
Litigation: The process of taking legal action. Litigation could help an interest group by creating controversy about a certain candidate, and causing people to doubt him, and vote for the other candidate. Also, it can be used to fight laws that a group considers to be unjust.
Campaign contributions: By donating money to a candidate, or, more importantly, their campaign, they give a candidate the funding required to create positive publicity in favor of their candidate of choice.
Grassroots lobbying: The process of attempting to indirectly influence legislature not through the Senator or Congressman, but through their constituents. It also covers more traditional lobbying tactics of attempting to sway political votes.
Part B:
American Medical Association: Litigation. It fights against laws it believes are unjust in court.
Sierra Club: Grassroots lobbying. The Sierra club is one of the oldest interest groups in the history of the United States, and it specializes in grassroots lobbying.
NRA: Specializing in Lobbying, the NRA is one of the largest, and most powerful lobbying groups in the county, it is also one of the oldest. It's membership is over 5,000,000.
NAACP: Litigation: The NAACP repeatedly went to court to defend civil rights issues. Especially for African Americans.
Essay #6
Part A:
Age: Older people vote more. A lifetime of political information. Very strong opinions come with age. Votes could potentially effect the elderly more than the rest of the general population (medicare, welfare, veteran benefits (in some cases))
Education: More education means more likelihood of voting. Better understands issues posed to them.
Part B:
Those under 18 years of age are not allowed to vote for the president, and this decreases voter turnout because the young have strong opinions, and would vote for the president of their choice, if they had the option.
Part C:
Political parties. Without the need to actually vote for your candidate, you can still "participate" in the political process by belonging to a political party. There is no commitment to belong to a party, one simply needs to claim loyalty to that party, whether or not they actually do anything about it.
Age: Older people vote more. A lifetime of political information. Very strong opinions come with age. Votes could potentially effect the elderly more than the rest of the general population (medicare, welfare, veteran benefits (in some cases))
Education: More education means more likelihood of voting. Better understands issues posed to them.
Part B:
Those under 18 years of age are not allowed to vote for the president, and this decreases voter turnout because the young have strong opinions, and would vote for the president of their choice, if they had the option.
Part C:
Political parties. Without the need to actually vote for your candidate, you can still "participate" in the political process by belonging to a political party. There is no commitment to belong to a party, one simply needs to claim loyalty to that party, whether or not they actually do anything about it.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Senator Wyden
Biography:
Born in Wichita Kansas, on May 3rd of 1949, Senator Ron Wyden attended school in Palo Alto California. He attended college at Stanford, and studied law at the University Of Oregon Law School in Eugene Oregon. He provided legal services to senior citizens from 1977-1979. He was elected as a democratic representative to Congress, and served from 1981-1996.
In 1996 he resigned from Congress, upon being elected to the Senate. He has served on the Senate ever since. Ron Wyden is devoted to making his constituents heard in the Senate. Wyden regularly holds "open to all" town meetings, so that he can hear what his citizens want from him, and from their government. He attempts to reach across the aisle, and reach bipartisan solutions.
Committees:
Senator Ron Wyden supports Abortion, and Stem Cell research. He has also voted in ways that "support" pro-choice, such as allowing minors to cross state lines to receive abortions. He also voted to protect the secrecy of minors who got abortions out of state, by not making it a necessity to contact the parents of aforementioned children. But he did not desire for all teenage girls to become mothers at 16, so he voted to spend $100,000,000 on preventing teen pregnancy by properly educating teenagers, and providing contraceptives.
Wyden's opinions on education is a very liberal standpoint. He has attempted to ensure that all potential college students know the circumstances they shall find in the working world after college. He hopes that this will allow students to make more educate decisions on which college they should attend, what their major should be, and what career path they should follow if they wish to succeed in life. Wyden also authored the College Tuitions Savings Act, which eventually became law in 2001 as part of a larger bill designed to aid the economy through tax relief, economic growth, and other such programs.
Questions:
1. What is your opinion on foreign military aid/ usage?
2. Do you believe that the territories under federal control should be allowed to join the United States by becoming states?
3. Do you believe that we should continue affirmative action programs, or do you believe that we have progressed far enough as a nation that we no longer need them?
Born in Wichita Kansas, on May 3rd of 1949, Senator Ron Wyden attended school in Palo Alto California. He attended college at Stanford, and studied law at the University Of Oregon Law School in Eugene Oregon. He provided legal services to senior citizens from 1977-1979. He was elected as a democratic representative to Congress, and served from 1981-1996.
In 1996 he resigned from Congress, upon being elected to the Senate. He has served on the Senate ever since. Ron Wyden is devoted to making his constituents heard in the Senate. Wyden regularly holds "open to all" town meetings, so that he can hear what his citizens want from him, and from their government. He attempts to reach across the aisle, and reach bipartisan solutions.
Committees:
-
Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
- Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Energy
- Ex Officio, Subcommittee on National Parks
- Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
- Ex Officio, Subcommittee on Water and Power
-
Senate Committee on Finance
- Chairman, Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness
- Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure
- Member, Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight
- Joint Committee on Taxation
- Senate Committee on the Budget
- Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- Senate Special Committee on Aging
Senator Ron Wyden supports Abortion, and Stem Cell research. He has also voted in ways that "support" pro-choice, such as allowing minors to cross state lines to receive abortions. He also voted to protect the secrecy of minors who got abortions out of state, by not making it a necessity to contact the parents of aforementioned children. But he did not desire for all teenage girls to become mothers at 16, so he voted to spend $100,000,000 on preventing teen pregnancy by properly educating teenagers, and providing contraceptives.
Wyden's opinions on education is a very liberal standpoint. He has attempted to ensure that all potential college students know the circumstances they shall find in the working world after college. He hopes that this will allow students to make more educate decisions on which college they should attend, what their major should be, and what career path they should follow if they wish to succeed in life. Wyden also authored the College Tuitions Savings Act, which eventually became law in 2001 as part of a larger bill designed to aid the economy through tax relief, economic growth, and other such programs.
Questions:
1. What is your opinion on foreign military aid/ usage?
2. Do you believe that the territories under federal control should be allowed to join the United States by becoming states?
3. Do you believe that we should continue affirmative action programs, or do you believe that we have progressed far enough as a nation that we no longer need them?
Friday, November 8, 2013
John Mitchell
February 21, 1975, sentenced to 2.5-8 years in prison, for involvement of Watergate scandal.
John N. Mitchell was the attorney general under president Nixon. Before that, he was a respected bond lawyer, and he also directed Nixon's political campaign's in 1968, and 1972.
Mitchell was born Detroit Michigan, and grew up in Long Island. He served in the navy for three years during WWII. He served as a municipal bond lawyer from 1938 until 1968 (with the exception of his time spent in the military). Mitchell was married twice, and his second wife became quite famous, in her own right, for pronouncing Mitchell's innocence in the Watergate scandal. The marriage eventually broke up, do to her alcoholism, and "erratic" behavior.
Mitchell was appointed attorney general in January of 1969 by president Nixon, and president Nixon made a strange request to J. Edgar Hoover (director of the FBI) that no background check be run on Mitchell. Mitchell resigned from the post in 1972 to run Nixon's re-election campaign.
Mitchell was a firm believer in the fact that the government needed to enforce "law and order" to protect the citizens of the united states, and that this was more important that a person's civil liberties.
It is believed that his belief in "law and order" are what led him to help organize Watergate. In fact Mitchell is best known for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, in which he was a key player. He evaluated the results of the first Watergate burglary, and also ordered five men to return to fix wire taps, and photograph more documents. Tapes from the oval office, and testimony by those involved established that he was tantamount in planning the break in.
Watergate was a hotel where assorted democratic representatives were meeting to discuss there upcoming campaign. The Watergate scandal, however, was the actions by Richard Nixon, and assorted high ranking republican's to discover what the democrats were planning, and how best to counter their political movements. The Watergate scandal involved wire-taps by the CIA (on the president's orders) and a number of burglaries, to steal democrat information. The Watergate scandal took place in June of 1972.
During the summer of 1973 the United States senate led an investigation into Watergate, and whether or not the burglaries were "illegal, improper, or unethical," and whether they were actually connected to President Nixon. The hearing ranged from discovering if he knew anything about the break-in's, or the cover ups, to Alexander Butterfield announcing there were tapes to prove it. The entire affair ended with Nixon's resignation from the presidential office, in 1974; although John Mitchell was sentenced to prison, and fined $42,000 in 1975.
Bibliography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall06/Weiner/pages/People/mitchell.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/05/a-look-back-at-the-senate-watergate-hearings.html
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Essay's
Essay 1.The part of government that was originally closest to the people, was the house of representatives. The house of representatives was the part that elected the president, on behalf of the people who they represented. The Senate, however, was not chosen by the people, or the house of representatives, but the state legislatures. The major flaw with this "system" is that it leaves very little power in the hands of the individual, but that has been fixed (to an extent) over time.
The united states government decided to limit the rule of the majority. The first way in which they did this, was by creating a system of checks and balances. Another way that this is done, is the fact that the majority of states can overrule the majority of people. A third way this happens, is the fact that everyone gets the same amount of representation in the Senate, thus the bigger states, have the same power as the smaller states.
Over the years, we have moved to a more democratic system of government. The 17th amendment allowed the people to directly vote for their Senators; this puts more power into the hands of the little people. Primary elections allow for people to decide who runs for president, as opposed to just which of the established candidates gets power.
Essay 2.
There are a number of ways to be involved in the political process. Such as funding a candidate: this means that someone who shares your views will be taking office; and it also means that you don't need to deal with the stress of running a campaign yourself. Another way to involve yourself i politics, is to run yourself: this way, you can actually attain power, and make changes; and also, your funding primarily comes from outside sources.
The united states government decided to limit the rule of the majority. The first way in which they did this, was by creating a system of checks and balances. Another way that this is done, is the fact that the majority of states can overrule the majority of people. A third way this happens, is the fact that everyone gets the same amount of representation in the Senate, thus the bigger states, have the same power as the smaller states.
Over the years, we have moved to a more democratic system of government. The 17th amendment allowed the people to directly vote for their Senators; this puts more power into the hands of the little people. Primary elections allow for people to decide who runs for president, as opposed to just which of the established candidates gets power.
Essay 2.
There are a number of ways to be involved in the political process. Such as funding a candidate: this means that someone who shares your views will be taking office; and it also means that you don't need to deal with the stress of running a campaign yourself. Another way to involve yourself i politics, is to run yourself: this way, you can actually attain power, and make changes; and also, your funding primarily comes from outside sources.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Center Of American Politics, "government survey"
I can't speak for everyone, but I, for one, wasn't expecting the results I got. The poll said that, while I was in the middle (like I expected) I leaned more conservative than liberal. While I did expect to be found near the middle, I expected to lean more left than right, I thought myself more liberal than conservative.
Although, potentially, there is a possibility that it was impacted by the fact that most of my answers were "knee- jerk" reactions. I answered as my first instinct told me to, but for some questions, after I hit "next" I went into deeper thought about the question, and realized that another answer would actually have been more accurate of my opinion.
I would have gone back and changed it, but, sadly, I did not know how to. Don't judge me.
And, perhaps, like we have learned is possible, the wording of the survey may have affected my answers. While probably not extremely affected, but enough that it all stacked up, and pushed me slightly towards the conservative side.
As I read into the article, I find that in many ways, it makes more and more sense that I am firmly in the center of the political spectrum.
The center and I agree on the topics of government aid, guns, religion, preferences of political functioning, and how involved the government is in our personal affairs.
All things considered, I find myself proud to be a member of the middle. I'm not Democratic, I'm not Republican, I am moderate.
In all honesty, I think we should get our own political party, I'd vote for that candidate.
Although, potentially, there is a possibility that it was impacted by the fact that most of my answers were "knee- jerk" reactions. I answered as my first instinct told me to, but for some questions, after I hit "next" I went into deeper thought about the question, and realized that another answer would actually have been more accurate of my opinion.
I would have gone back and changed it, but, sadly, I did not know how to. Don't judge me.
And, perhaps, like we have learned is possible, the wording of the survey may have affected my answers. While probably not extremely affected, but enough that it all stacked up, and pushed me slightly towards the conservative side.
As I read into the article, I find that in many ways, it makes more and more sense that I am firmly in the center of the political spectrum.
The center and I agree on the topics of government aid, guns, religion, preferences of political functioning, and how involved the government is in our personal affairs.
All things considered, I find myself proud to be a member of the middle. I'm not Democratic, I'm not Republican, I am moderate.
In all honesty, I think we should get our own political party, I'd vote for that candidate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)