"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.
Monday, March 17, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)