http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27387370
A large debate in the United States is foreign policy. The country has gone through four phases of ideology towards foreign affairs. The first was Isolationism. After WWI, the United States believed that staying out of other countries' problems was the best option. However, Pearl Harbor and WWII changed the mindset of the American public. Citizens then believed in the Containment ideology. This meant controlling the other superpower 'bullies' such as the Soviet Union. Vietnam put the United States back into an isolationist ideology called Disengagement. The American people wanted to 'disengage' from problems that didn't involve the United States. The United States is now considered to have a Human Rights ideology. After the Serbians invaded and killed many Albanians, the American public started to believe that the United States should step in when the human rights of others are endangered.
The news story on the front cover of several news sites is the kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls in Nigeria. Boko Haram, the terrorist organization that kidnapped the girls, have terrorized the Nigerian public for years in hopes of overthrowing the Nigerian Government and imposing an Islamic slate. When Americans heard about the tragedy of the Nigerian girls, the public was outraged. Social media sites of all types were trending the hash-tag '#BringOurGirlsBack" worldwide. Many Americans wondered when the United States was going to send troops in to aid the Nigerians in their search for the missing girls.
As of May 13, the United States, Great Britain, France, and China already have troops on the ground searching for any leads as to where the Nigerian girls are being held and an Israeli counter-terrorism team was currently on the way. The United States released a statement saying that they provided manned planes containing satellite surveillance. The goal is to locate and identify the location of where the more than 200 kidnapped girls are being held. An unnamed, senior administration official said, "We have shared commercial satellite imagery with the Nigerians and are flying manned ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) assets over Nigeria with the government's permission."
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Friday, May 2, 2014
Unit 5: House GOP reminded that health care policy is hard
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/house-gop-reminded-health-care
The government often uses public policies in order to address certain issues. These issues can range from popular subjects like gun control to less known issues like fisheries. Issues can be from any level of the government: local, state, or federal. Many of the issues that face public policy are brought about by individuals or interest groups. Government officials ultimately choose the issue or problem that the government is going to implement a public policy for.
A major public policy facing the United States today deals with the subject of health care. For many years, the United States government has been creating a new health care policy. The Affordable Care Act is arguably the most controversial public policy in the works right now. Republicans have been diligently working in order to create an alternative to 'Obamacare', but, thus far, they have been unable to do so. Representative Dennis Ross (Fla) stated, "“For the next six months, we’re going to go into an election knowing that we’re not going to do anything to address health care.”
Many of the Republican party are divided on the subject. Some House Republicans are convinced that creating a new conservative alternative, being called the 'Obamacare Accountability Project', for 'Obamacare' is the right thing to do. David Drucker, a senior congressional correspondent for the Washington Examiner, said, "[The] working group of about 35 GOP members, has written a “draft” proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, according to one House Republican familiar with the effort. But the group has not shared the draft with their colleagues and is engaged in an internal debate over whether their goal should be to simply introduce legislation, or also hold floor votes.The distinction is important.Rank-and-file Republicans are more likely to haggle over policy and face pressure from conservative groups if they have to vote on the proposal. Achieving consensus likely would be easier if the legislation is treated as a broad agenda to be tackled after the midterm elections.
This probably wasn’t intended to be funny, but I found it amusing anyway."
Rumors are also flying that the Republican party may put together a separate alternative to 'Obamacare' that actually will have no intention to be signed. This alternative will be used to make 'intra-party negotiations easier'.
The government often uses public policies in order to address certain issues. These issues can range from popular subjects like gun control to less known issues like fisheries. Issues can be from any level of the government: local, state, or federal. Many of the issues that face public policy are brought about by individuals or interest groups. Government officials ultimately choose the issue or problem that the government is going to implement a public policy for.
A major public policy facing the United States today deals with the subject of health care. For many years, the United States government has been creating a new health care policy. The Affordable Care Act is arguably the most controversial public policy in the works right now. Republicans have been diligently working in order to create an alternative to 'Obamacare', but, thus far, they have been unable to do so. Representative Dennis Ross (Fla) stated, "“For the next six months, we’re going to go into an election knowing that we’re not going to do anything to address health care.”
Many of the Republican party are divided on the subject. Some House Republicans are convinced that creating a new conservative alternative, being called the 'Obamacare Accountability Project', for 'Obamacare' is the right thing to do. David Drucker, a senior congressional correspondent for the Washington Examiner, said, "[The] working group of about 35 GOP members, has written a “draft” proposal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, according to one House Republican familiar with the effort. But the group has not shared the draft with their colleagues and is engaged in an internal debate over whether their goal should be to simply introduce legislation, or also hold floor votes.The distinction is important.Rank-and-file Republicans are more likely to haggle over policy and face pressure from conservative groups if they have to vote on the proposal. Achieving consensus likely would be easier if the legislation is treated as a broad agenda to be tackled after the midterm elections.
This probably wasn’t intended to be funny, but I found it amusing anyway."
Rumors are also flying that the Republican party may put together a separate alternative to 'Obamacare' that actually will have no intention to be signed. This alternative will be used to make 'intra-party negotiations easier'.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Unit 5: Gun policy: Old fight; new strategies
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/politics/gun-control-status/index.html?c=politics
Government policies are becoming quite popular in the United States government. These policies are used to handle many different issues that the United States faces. They can be made as solutions to many problems such as taxes, environmental dilemmas, and health care issues.
Policies can be influenced by many different factors. Political parties, politicians, organizations, public opinion, and the media are all known to sway certain government policies in certain directions.
Gun control has been a topic of discussion since the beginning years of the United States. It began when the Bill of Rights finally became ratified in 1791. The second amendment stated, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Earlier, Gun-control Democrats in Virginia overcame the rough criticism of the National Riffle Association. The govenor, lieutenant govenor, and attorney general's wins shocked the NRA who is known as politically powerful and headquartered in Washington. Terry , at the final governor campaign debate, said, "I don't care what grade I got from the NRA."
McAuliffe has been pushing for stronger gun-control since just after he took office. His efforts fell short not long after. McAuliffe concluded that the result of his efforts was due to the fact that the 'battles are being fought' more in Washington. There, over a year ago, the Senate failed to expand on the development of stronger gun-control laws following the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Unit 4: Supreme Court could weigh in on NSA case, justice says
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/18/justice/supreme-court-justice-nsa/index.html?iref=allsearch
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court in the United States. Created under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court serves to handle a number of court cases ranging in severity each year. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. SCOTUS, however, is only allowed to work inside their jurisdiction during federal and state courts.
There are 8 associate judges and 1 chief justice. All of these positions are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. These positions are held for life unless they are impeached or decide to resign from office. The current members are Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. John G. Roberts is the current Chief Justice.
Earlier this week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia spoke before the National Press Club. Ginsburg was asked about her opinion on if Snowden, who leaked data from the National Security Agency, was a whistleblower or a traitor. She replied by saying she could not say and also said, "It's also possible, is it not that the question you raise could come before the court. And we are not at liberty to preview."
Back in June of 2013, The Washington Post and The Guardian released stories that showed proof the NSA was 'up to no good'. These stories revealed they had been collecting phone record and surveillance on American citizens. The whole situation startled Americans and left many wondering the limits on the 4th amendment regarding search and seizure laws. Where is the line drawn on privacy and national security?
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest federal court in the United States. Created under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court serves to handle a number of court cases ranging in severity each year. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law. SCOTUS, however, is only allowed to work inside their jurisdiction during federal and state courts.
There are 8 associate judges and 1 chief justice. All of these positions are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. These positions are held for life unless they are impeached or decide to resign from office. The current members are Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. John G. Roberts is the current Chief Justice.
Earlier this week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Antonin Scalia spoke before the National Press Club. Ginsburg was asked about her opinion on if Snowden, who leaked data from the National Security Agency, was a whistleblower or a traitor. She replied by saying she could not say and also said, "It's also possible, is it not that the question you raise could come before the court. And we are not at liberty to preview."
Back in June of 2013, The Washington Post and The Guardian released stories that showed proof the NSA was 'up to no good'. These stories revealed they had been collecting phone record and surveillance on American citizens. The whole situation startled Americans and left many wondering the limits on the 4th amendment regarding search and seizure laws. Where is the line drawn on privacy and national security?
Friday, April 11, 2014
Unit 4: Sebelius out, Obama nominates new health secretary
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/11/politics/burwell-hhs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Under the separation of powers, the executive branch includes cabinets under the presidential system of government. Cabinets are advisers of the president who head different executive departments of the government. Cabinets are appointed by the president and, therefore, are usually of the same political part as the president. The selections of the president are then approved by the senate insuring that the chosen cabinet member will be suitable for the duty and not just the president's choice.
Cabinet members are the heads of fifteen different executive departments. Each department deals with a set subject in handling major federal agencies. These 15 departments include the department of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, energy, health and human services, homeland security, housing and urban development, interior, justice, labor, state, transportation, treasury, and veteran affairs.
Today, President Obama announced that he is nominating Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be the next health secretary. This job would place her ultimately in charge of overseeing Obamacare.
Burwell is currently directing the White House budget office. During her time in the White House budget office, Burwell dealt with last year's budget drama and had to send out the shutdown order after an agreement was not met.
Obama commented on Burwell's previous work in office, ""Sylvia is a proven manager, and she knows how to deliver results," he said. "And she'll need to be a proven manager because these are tough tasks, big challenges."
Burwell's new work will introduce new hardships. The implementing of Obamacare has brought about a sort of chaos inside the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the chance of the situation turning around is possible. Obamacare recently reached 7.5 million signups. Burwell's experience in the budget office and the Treasury could bring about another spike in signups if the senate approves her nomination.
Under the separation of powers, the executive branch includes cabinets under the presidential system of government. Cabinets are advisers of the president who head different executive departments of the government. Cabinets are appointed by the president and, therefore, are usually of the same political part as the president. The selections of the president are then approved by the senate insuring that the chosen cabinet member will be suitable for the duty and not just the president's choice.
Cabinet members are the heads of fifteen different executive departments. Each department deals with a set subject in handling major federal agencies. These 15 departments include the department of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, energy, health and human services, homeland security, housing and urban development, interior, justice, labor, state, transportation, treasury, and veteran affairs.
Today, President Obama announced that he is nominating Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be the next health secretary. This job would place her ultimately in charge of overseeing Obamacare.
Burwell is currently directing the White House budget office. During her time in the White House budget office, Burwell dealt with last year's budget drama and had to send out the shutdown order after an agreement was not met.
Obama commented on Burwell's previous work in office, ""Sylvia is a proven manager, and she knows how to deliver results," he said. "And she'll need to be a proven manager because these are tough tasks, big challenges."
Burwell's new work will introduce new hardships. The implementing of Obamacare has brought about a sort of chaos inside the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the chance of the situation turning around is possible. Obamacare recently reached 7.5 million signups. Burwell's experience in the budget office and the Treasury could bring about another spike in signups if the senate approves her nomination.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Unit 4: Afghanistan is still a long way from democracy
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/afghanistan-still-long-way-democracy
Worldwide, there are three main systems of government: parliamentary, semi-presidential, and presidential. During the 1950's, 60% of the world was considered parliamentary, 30% semi-presidential, and only 10% presidential. In present times, much more of the world has switched to a democracy-type of government ran by a president. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the world are ran by either semi-presidential or presidential systems of government.
Afghanistan is considered part of the two-thirds majority as it has a presidential system of government. However, their strive for democracy is taking a great amount of time. Saturday Afghans will participate in an election to replace President Hamid Karzai.
As many voters have admitted to wanting to participate in their country's future, the threat of danger lurks for many. Violence may prevent voting levels from reaching their full potential. Just last Friday in eastern Afghanistan, two Associated Press journalists were shot by Afghan police officers while traveling alongside election workers. This specific attack was subsequent to Taliban attack on the Kabul office of government election administration panel last week. The percentage is raising fast, but currently, 10% of voting locations have been closed due to the potential danger of the site.
Another concern becoming apparent in voters' minds is potential government-sanctioned fraud. In the previous election in 2009, President Karzai's rival candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, believed the election was rigged. The allegations that followed caused mayhem in the country and almost resulted in a civil war. Many voters also question if Karzai will leave the government alone after he steps down. Some are concerned that he or his allies may continue to manipulate government decisions.
While the country is trying to become more of a democracy, the difficulty of preventing a civil war is evident. With the Taliban controlling large areas of the county, uproars of damage and violence are quite possible. Many argue that it is more important for the results of the election to be accepted by Afghans than for the results to model a stronger sense of democracy.
Worldwide, there are three main systems of government: parliamentary, semi-presidential, and presidential. During the 1950's, 60% of the world was considered parliamentary, 30% semi-presidential, and only 10% presidential. In present times, much more of the world has switched to a democracy-type of government ran by a president. In fact, nearly two-thirds of the world are ran by either semi-presidential or presidential systems of government.
Afghanistan is considered part of the two-thirds majority as it has a presidential system of government. However, their strive for democracy is taking a great amount of time. Saturday Afghans will participate in an election to replace President Hamid Karzai.
As many voters have admitted to wanting to participate in their country's future, the threat of danger lurks for many. Violence may prevent voting levels from reaching their full potential. Just last Friday in eastern Afghanistan, two Associated Press journalists were shot by Afghan police officers while traveling alongside election workers. This specific attack was subsequent to Taliban attack on the Kabul office of government election administration panel last week. The percentage is raising fast, but currently, 10% of voting locations have been closed due to the potential danger of the site.
Another concern becoming apparent in voters' minds is potential government-sanctioned fraud. In the previous election in 2009, President Karzai's rival candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, believed the election was rigged. The allegations that followed caused mayhem in the country and almost resulted in a civil war. Many voters also question if Karzai will leave the government alone after he steps down. Some are concerned that he or his allies may continue to manipulate government decisions.
While the country is trying to become more of a democracy, the difficulty of preventing a civil war is evident. With the Taliban controlling large areas of the county, uproars of damage and violence are quite possible. Many argue that it is more important for the results of the election to be accepted by Afghans than for the results to model a stronger sense of democracy.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Unit 1: Court Upholds Constitutionality of Conn. Gun-Control Law
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/court-upholds-strict-gun-law
This week, the federal court decided to uphold Connecticut's assault weapon ban. After last year alone, almost half of the states strengthened reform laws regarding gun control. The judges in Hartford said that the assult weapon ban balances the second ammendment and the Obama administration's push to reduce violence.
“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello said.
The decision to uphold the assault weapon ban left pro-gun advocates upset to the point of suing the state last April. The court, however, rejected the argument. Brian Stapleton, who represented all of the plaintiffs, said, “The decision was not entirely unexpected, but disappointing nonetheless. I respect Judge Covello immensely, but I disagree with what he has decided. We are going to appeal.”
This week, the federal court decided to uphold Connecticut's assault weapon ban. After last year alone, almost half of the states strengthened reform laws regarding gun control. The judges in Hartford said that the assult weapon ban balances the second ammendment and the Obama administration's push to reduce violence.
“The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control,” U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello said.
The decision to uphold the assault weapon ban left pro-gun advocates upset to the point of suing the state last April. The court, however, rejected the argument. Brian Stapleton, who represented all of the plaintiffs, said, “The decision was not entirely unexpected, but disappointing nonetheless. I respect Judge Covello immensely, but I disagree with what he has decided. We are going to appeal.”
The ban of assault weapons took affect after the mass shooting in December of 2012 in Newtown, Conneticut that killed 26 people, (20 of which being first grade students). When the bill went into place, it required background check on all firearm purchases, as well as regulations for buying ammunition.
Almost 800 people under the age of 18 were killed by the use of guns after the Newtown shooting. Attorney General George Jepsen of Connecticut said, “We will continue to vigorously defend them in the event of any appeal that may be filed of this decision.”
Upholding the reform is a big decision on Connecticut's part. While the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are issued to the states, there are some exceptions. States have the right to decide the extent of the second amendment.
Upholding the reform is a big decision on Connecticut's part. While the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights are issued to the states, there are some exceptions. States have the right to decide the extent of the second amendment.
In my opinion, banning assault weapons is a good but also bad thing. I believe that having gun control is key. If we allow people under the age or without a background check to have possession of a gun, the probability of violence would spike. The second amendment, however, says that citizens have the right to bare arms. While this bill is violating the amendment, it is for the better of the people. We are minimizing the chance of a spike in violence like that of the Newtown shooting.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Unit 3: A Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign could cost $1.7 billion?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/12/a-hillary-clinton-2016-campaign-could-cost-1-7-billion/
The encouragement from the democratic party for Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 is growing rapidly. The group supporting Clinton's run for president, Ready for Hillary, is predicted to grow from two million to five million at the end of the year. The senior adviser for 'Ready for Hillary', Craig Smith, said that his estimation for the price of a presidential campaign in 2016 would be $1.7 billion. That amount does include spending by outside groups. In 2013, Ready for Hillary raised $4 million.
The editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political report, Stuart Rothenberg said, "I can see them picking a figure that is at the outer edge of their estimates because they want to set a goal that is both reachable but also a bit of a stretch. You want your fundraisers to feel like they have to work hard and you want your contributors to feel like they need to reach."
In the 2012 election, Democratic groups spent about $1.1 billion on the reelection of Obama. Rothenberg said because of the 2012 spending, "you have to assume every campaign can spend at least 1.1 billion, they know how to do it. But for most Americans, anytime we get a figure that has a B in it, people's eyes glaze over and they just start shaking their heads."
Back in 2004, the Bush campaign spent around $500 million. With the price of advertising alone increasing and the amount of advertisement options, the cost of running for office is increasing. Through advertising and getting the image of the candidate out to the public, political parties spend millions of dollars. In order to be recognized by the public, spending is completely necessary.
The encouragement from the democratic party for Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2016 is growing rapidly. The group supporting Clinton's run for president, Ready for Hillary, is predicted to grow from two million to five million at the end of the year. The senior adviser for 'Ready for Hillary', Craig Smith, said that his estimation for the price of a presidential campaign in 2016 would be $1.7 billion. That amount does include spending by outside groups. In 2013, Ready for Hillary raised $4 million.
The editor of the non-partisan Rothenberg Political report, Stuart Rothenberg said, "I can see them picking a figure that is at the outer edge of their estimates because they want to set a goal that is both reachable but also a bit of a stretch. You want your fundraisers to feel like they have to work hard and you want your contributors to feel like they need to reach."
In the 2012 election, Democratic groups spent about $1.1 billion on the reelection of Obama. Rothenberg said because of the 2012 spending, "you have to assume every campaign can spend at least 1.1 billion, they know how to do it. But for most Americans, anytime we get a figure that has a B in it, people's eyes glaze over and they just start shaking their heads."
Back in 2004, the Bush campaign spent around $500 million. With the price of advertising alone increasing and the amount of advertisement options, the cost of running for office is increasing. Through advertising and getting the image of the candidate out to the public, political parties spend millions of dollars. In order to be recognized by the public, spending is completely necessary.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Unit 3:Clinton compares Putin's Ukraine moves to Hitler, later recalibrates
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/report-clinton-compares-putins-ukraine-moves-to-hitler-and-nazi-germany/
Wednesday former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, explained her earlier comparsion of Vladimir Putin's military intervention in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler during World War II.
During an interview with a professor of political science and communications at UCLA, Clinton said, "I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before. What I said yesterday is that the claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities ... is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland, in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe."
In the interview, Clinton never used 'Hitler'. Instead, she rephrased her previous statement by saying 'German under Nazis'. During her previous comment from Tuesday, Clinton said, "Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the 30s. All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."
Wednesday, Clinton focused her attention more on the situation at hand. She talked about the extent of Ukraine's problem. She stated, "As President Obama has said, the Russian intervention in Crimea violates international law and it is therefore of deep concern to the United States and our allies. All parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at his delicate time."
Senator John McCain, who previously called Obama's foreign policy feckless and partially responsible for the latest problems, agreed with Clinton's statements on Wednesday along with Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio stated, "I think the point that she was making, that in terms of the claims that they needed to move into a neighboring country to protect an ethnic group tied to them is certainly similar to the argument that Hitler made in the 1930s."
While her 'Hitler' comments were strongly negative towards the situation, Clinton's statements were reversed. As a political figure and possible candidate in the 2016 presidential race, her statements could affect some veiws of minor political parties and interest groups. As the majority of Americans would agree with her statements, Nazi Americans are still present in our country.
In studying the political parties of the United States, interest groups were a topic of discussion. The United States has interest groups for nearly every scenario possible. While some interest groups are well known, such as the Tea Party, others are small and not as well known. In stating what Hillary Clinton stated, she could have caused a spark that would be detrimental to her possible campaign.
Wednesday former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, explained her earlier comparsion of Vladimir Putin's military intervention in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler during World War II.
During an interview with a professor of political science and communications at UCLA, Clinton said, "I'm not making a comparison certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before. What I said yesterday is that the claims by President Putin and other Russians that they had to go into Crimea and maybe further into eastern Ukraine because they had to protect the Russian minorities ... is reminiscent of claims that were made back in the 1930s when Germany under the Nazis kept talking about how they had to protect German minorities in Poland, in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere throughout Europe."
In the interview, Clinton never used 'Hitler'. Instead, she rephrased her previous statement by saying 'German under Nazis'. During her previous comment from Tuesday, Clinton said, "Now if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the 30s. All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they're not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that's what's gotten everybody so nervous."
Wednesday, Clinton focused her attention more on the situation at hand. She talked about the extent of Ukraine's problem. She stated, "As President Obama has said, the Russian intervention in Crimea violates international law and it is therefore of deep concern to the United States and our allies. All parties should avoid steps that could be misinterpreted or lead to miscalculation at his delicate time."
Senator John McCain, who previously called Obama's foreign policy feckless and partially responsible for the latest problems, agreed with Clinton's statements on Wednesday along with Senator Marco Rubio. Rubio stated, "I think the point that she was making, that in terms of the claims that they needed to move into a neighboring country to protect an ethnic group tied to them is certainly similar to the argument that Hitler made in the 1930s."
While her 'Hitler' comments were strongly negative towards the situation, Clinton's statements were reversed. As a political figure and possible candidate in the 2016 presidential race, her statements could affect some veiws of minor political parties and interest groups. As the majority of Americans would agree with her statements, Nazi Americans are still present in our country.
In studying the political parties of the United States, interest groups were a topic of discussion. The United States has interest groups for nearly every scenario possible. While some interest groups are well known, such as the Tea Party, others are small and not as well known. In stating what Hillary Clinton stated, she could have caused a spark that would be detrimental to her possible campaign.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Unit 3: Eleven small Indian political parties band together as ‘third front’ as elections approach
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/25/eleven-small-indian-political-parties-band-together-as-third-front-as-elections-approach/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
In India, eleven political parties vowed to work together in hopes of defeating the nation's two main parties at the upcoming general elections. Prakash Karat, a senior leader of the Communist Party of India, said the new front would “work for the defeat” of Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (traditional parties that control nearly half of the seats in India's parliament) who is led by Narendra Modi. Karat also said, "We need an alternative to both the Congress and BJP. That’s why we the leaders of the 11 parties resolved today to work together."
Unfortunately, recent opinion polls placed Narendra Modi in ahead of congress's campaign who is led by the son, grandson and great grandson of former Prime Ministers, Rahul Gandhi. No single party has one a parliament majority since 1989. Karat said the parties had broadly agreed on a common policy framework and the front would give itself a name after more parties joined, while their prime ministerial candidate would be announced after the elections.
This emergence of an alliance of smaller parties could, however, spark a change. Winning the parliament majority is a long shot to say the least, but the presence of outside power is seen. These powers may one day be able to rise and become a political party that could, perhaps, defeat the stronger parties of the country. Depending on their alliance, the power could grow or shrink. By sticking together and adding more smaller parties, their political power could overpower the corrupt government of India.
Political parties in other countries are much different than in the United States. Here in the states, we have 2 major political parties: Democrats and Republicans. Much to the majority parties' concern, independent smaller parties are on the rise. Over the past couple of elections, the number of independent voters, instead of Democratic or Republican, is rising rapidly. Instead of identifying as one party or another, many voters are finding themselves in the middle because neither party represents what he or she believes.
In India, eleven political parties vowed to work together in hopes of defeating the nation's two main parties at the upcoming general elections. Prakash Karat, a senior leader of the Communist Party of India, said the new front would “work for the defeat” of Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (traditional parties that control nearly half of the seats in India's parliament) who is led by Narendra Modi. Karat also said, "We need an alternative to both the Congress and BJP. That’s why we the leaders of the 11 parties resolved today to work together."
Unfortunately, recent opinion polls placed Narendra Modi in ahead of congress's campaign who is led by the son, grandson and great grandson of former Prime Ministers, Rahul Gandhi. No single party has one a parliament majority since 1989. Karat said the parties had broadly agreed on a common policy framework and the front would give itself a name after more parties joined, while their prime ministerial candidate would be announced after the elections.
This emergence of an alliance of smaller parties could, however, spark a change. Winning the parliament majority is a long shot to say the least, but the presence of outside power is seen. These powers may one day be able to rise and become a political party that could, perhaps, defeat the stronger parties of the country. Depending on their alliance, the power could grow or shrink. By sticking together and adding more smaller parties, their political power could overpower the corrupt government of India.
Political parties in other countries are much different than in the United States. Here in the states, we have 2 major political parties: Democrats and Republicans. Much to the majority parties' concern, independent smaller parties are on the rise. Over the past couple of elections, the number of independent voters, instead of Democratic or Republican, is rising rapidly. Instead of identifying as one party or another, many voters are finding themselves in the middle because neither party represents what he or she believes.
Friday, February 21, 2014
Unit 2: Colorado stash: $184M in marijuana taxes
http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/20/news/economy/marijuana-taxes-colorado/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Colorado expects to make about $184 million in tax revenue from marijuana in the first 18 months after legislation. Ironically, a majority of the money is said to go towards educating kids to avoid the use of marijuana. Colorada's Joint Budget Committee expects the revenue from retail and medical marijuana from January 1st to June 30th of the next fiscal year to be around $610 million. The state taxes marijuana three times- during the production, selling and buying.
Marijuana was even more popular than state officials had projected it to be. During the first couple days of being legal, may sellers ran out or even rationed their supplies.The sale of Marijuana was an all-cash sale until last week when the federal government gave banks the right to provide financial services to legal Marijuana producers. Marijuana is legal in Colorado for adults 21 or older. Colorado residents with state-issued identification can purchase up to one ounce. Out-of-state residents can purchase up to a quarter ounce.
The public opinion of citizens of the United States is evenly distributed between believing Marijuana should be legal and the other half of citizens that believe it should be illegal. Legalizing such a drug could have the potential to bring in a profit for the country due to the extremely high taxation that could be placed upon the drug. The United States could take the same approach that Colorado started by taxing the drug three times between the stages of production, selling, and buying.
On the other hand, the legalizing Marijuana could question the safety of the drug or how well we could control who uses the drug. It is a common fact that alcohol, for instance, is often consumed by underaged drinkers. If we can't control who consumes other drugs, some citizens might question how we would be able to control this drug, as well.
While public opinion will never be the same, the government is in a constant struggle to balance the situations. Pleasing everyone's opinions is impossible, but identifying key concepts on each side could put the scale at a more even balance. The way to do this is through polls and surveys to grasp a concept of the majority opinion. That way, the government's decisions, either way, will affect a larger amount of people in a positive way.
Colorado expects to make about $184 million in tax revenue from marijuana in the first 18 months after legislation. Ironically, a majority of the money is said to go towards educating kids to avoid the use of marijuana. Colorada's Joint Budget Committee expects the revenue from retail and medical marijuana from January 1st to June 30th of the next fiscal year to be around $610 million. The state taxes marijuana three times- during the production, selling and buying.
Marijuana was even more popular than state officials had projected it to be. During the first couple days of being legal, may sellers ran out or even rationed their supplies.The sale of Marijuana was an all-cash sale until last week when the federal government gave banks the right to provide financial services to legal Marijuana producers. Marijuana is legal in Colorado for adults 21 or older. Colorado residents with state-issued identification can purchase up to one ounce. Out-of-state residents can purchase up to a quarter ounce.
The public opinion of citizens of the United States is evenly distributed between believing Marijuana should be legal and the other half of citizens that believe it should be illegal. Legalizing such a drug could have the potential to bring in a profit for the country due to the extremely high taxation that could be placed upon the drug. The United States could take the same approach that Colorado started by taxing the drug three times between the stages of production, selling, and buying.
On the other hand, the legalizing Marijuana could question the safety of the drug or how well we could control who uses the drug. It is a common fact that alcohol, for instance, is often consumed by underaged drinkers. If we can't control who consumes other drugs, some citizens might question how we would be able to control this drug, as well.
While public opinion will never be the same, the government is in a constant struggle to balance the situations. Pleasing everyone's opinions is impossible, but identifying key concepts on each side could put the scale at a more even balance. The way to do this is through polls and surveys to grasp a concept of the majority opinion. That way, the government's decisions, either way, will affect a larger amount of people in a positive way.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Unit 2: Darren Sharper (Former NFL safety) charged with drugging, raping two women by L.A. district attorney
http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/darren-sharper-charged-with-drugging-raping-two-women-by-la-district-attorney/24485914?hpt=ju_bn2
The former New Orleans Saints safety Darren Sharper was charged with drugging and raping two women by the L.A. district attorney. It is said that Sharper used morphine and zolpidem to drug the women. Sharper's bond was raised to $10 million because he (being from Miami) is accused of raping women from Arizona, Nevada, and Louisiana.
There have been multiple cases in the past resulting in Sharper's arrest for the same situations. After this past allegation made against Sharper, the NFL suspended him "indefinitely" from his job as an analyst without pay.
The public's opinion on the situation regarding Darren Sharper's charging is viewed as negative. The media controls the over all view that the public is 'allowed' to see. Usually, in situations involving celebrities or famous athletes, the media releases every negative piece of information to the public. The public's opinion is the skewed to believe a certain side of the situation.
That way the public cannot define their opinions based off allegations. In situations like the one at hand, allegations and assumptions are easy to make. Media can sway opinions one way or the other based on how they report the lead stories.
Cases like Darren Sharper's should be handled in a more private way. In a sense, by narrowing the information given to the public, the public opinion would be less strong. Cases involving the government, community, education, or similar topics should be priorities of the media. That way, stories like Darren Sharper would be less consuming of the public's attention.
The former New Orleans Saints safety Darren Sharper was charged with drugging and raping two women by the L.A. district attorney. It is said that Sharper used morphine and zolpidem to drug the women. Sharper's bond was raised to $10 million because he (being from Miami) is accused of raping women from Arizona, Nevada, and Louisiana.
There have been multiple cases in the past resulting in Sharper's arrest for the same situations. After this past allegation made against Sharper, the NFL suspended him "indefinitely" from his job as an analyst without pay.
The public's opinion on the situation regarding Darren Sharper's charging is viewed as negative. The media controls the over all view that the public is 'allowed' to see. Usually, in situations involving celebrities or famous athletes, the media releases every negative piece of information to the public. The public's opinion is the skewed to believe a certain side of the situation.
That way the public cannot define their opinions based off allegations. In situations like the one at hand, allegations and assumptions are easy to make. Media can sway opinions one way or the other based on how they report the lead stories.
Cases like Darren Sharper's should be handled in a more private way. In a sense, by narrowing the information given to the public, the public opinion would be less strong. Cases involving the government, community, education, or similar topics should be priorities of the media. That way, stories like Darren Sharper would be less consuming of the public's attention.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Unit 1/2: Farm Bill Hurts Hungry Americans
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/opinion/stoehr-farm-bill-food-stamps/index.html?hpt=us_mid
Approved by the Senate on Tuesday, house republicans pushed a trillion dollar bill regarding Food Stamps. The farm bill is set to cut $8 billion during the next decade. The bill will also reduce food allotments for more than 850,000 households. Tea Party Republicans were pushing for a 5% cut instead of the 1% that was approved.
The news story said President Obama is projected to sign the bill because he is such a "pragmatic president". House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of hurting workers through hurting employers. He said, "We know from increases in the minimum wage in the past that hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans have lost their jobs, and so the very people the President purports to help are the ones who are going to get hurt by this." It is clear now that redistribution isn't opposed by either party. The problem arises when we decide who receives the redistribution.
The topic of redistribution of wealth has become more and more popular among politics. I believe that the cut to Food Stamps was necessary. However, when making the cut, I believe the bill was too forward. As 1% (in comparison to the 5% that the Tea Party Republicans originally pushed for) seems like a minuscule amount, it is actually quite large in the big picture.
The most dramatic part of the whole situation is pointed out in the Utah case. Nearly 40 Salt Lake City elementary students had their lunches taken from them because their balances didn't hold enough money to pay for the meal. This puts a realistic spin on the topic that seems over our heads.
The fact of the matter is that children are going without lunches because they can't afford to eat the school's lunch. By cutting the Food Stamps, we are preventing the misuse of the Food Stamps, but we are also preventing the people that need the Food Stamps from having the necessary amount. All in all, the problem with redistribution is finding a way to achieve successful distribution among the citizens that are in need of the distribution.
Approved by the Senate on Tuesday, house republicans pushed a trillion dollar bill regarding Food Stamps. The farm bill is set to cut $8 billion during the next decade. The bill will also reduce food allotments for more than 850,000 households. Tea Party Republicans were pushing for a 5% cut instead of the 1% that was approved.
The news story said President Obama is projected to sign the bill because he is such a "pragmatic president". House Speaker John Boehner accused Obama of hurting workers through hurting employers. He said, "We know from increases in the minimum wage in the past that hundreds of thousands of low-income Americans have lost their jobs, and so the very people the President purports to help are the ones who are going to get hurt by this." It is clear now that redistribution isn't opposed by either party. The problem arises when we decide who receives the redistribution.
The topic of redistribution of wealth has become more and more popular among politics. I believe that the cut to Food Stamps was necessary. However, when making the cut, I believe the bill was too forward. As 1% (in comparison to the 5% that the Tea Party Republicans originally pushed for) seems like a minuscule amount, it is actually quite large in the big picture.
The most dramatic part of the whole situation is pointed out in the Utah case. Nearly 40 Salt Lake City elementary students had their lunches taken from them because their balances didn't hold enough money to pay for the meal. This puts a realistic spin on the topic that seems over our heads.
The fact of the matter is that children are going without lunches because they can't afford to eat the school's lunch. By cutting the Food Stamps, we are preventing the misuse of the Food Stamps, but we are also preventing the people that need the Food Stamps from having the necessary amount. All in all, the problem with redistribution is finding a way to achieve successful distribution among the citizens that are in need of the distribution.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Unit 1: Convicted Cop Killer Edgar Tamayo Arias Executed
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/22/us/mexico-texas-tamayo-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
In Huntsville, Texas, on January 22, 2014 at 9:32 pm CT, Edgar Tamayo Arias became the 509th convicted felon to be executed in the state since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1979. Tamayo, a Mexican National, was convicted in 1994 for the murder of a police officer. The murder of Officer Guy Gaddis took place during a robbery.
After pursuing arrest, the officer was fatally shot by Tamayo. The Bush and Obama administration had tried to convince Texas to give Tamayo and other prisoners with similar situations new hearings in order to prevent Americans from having similar arrests overseas. To add, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that setting an execution date for Tamayo would be "extremely detrimental for the interests of the United States". The Mexican government had been arguing that the execution of Tamayo was violating international law.
After reading several stories of Edgar Tamayo Arias, my opinion of the execution changed. The Bush and Obama administration were right to try to convince the state of Texas to have new hearings. By executing citizens of other countries, we are putting our own citizens in danger of the same convictions. By granting the felons new hearings, they would have gotten a new opinion on the case.
Although a new hearing may not change the outcome of the situation, it would have given the Mexican government a clearer reasoning as to why the conviction happened. I think the biggest problem of the case was that the state of Texas and the country of Mexico were not communication enough about the actual situation. By postponing the actual execution date, the state of Texas could have presented more positive evidence to the Mexican governement. If the communication between the state and the country was more in depth, the situation could have been more understandable for the Mexican government.
In Huntsville, Texas, on January 22, 2014 at 9:32 pm CT, Edgar Tamayo Arias became the 509th convicted felon to be executed in the state since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1979. Tamayo, a Mexican National, was convicted in 1994 for the murder of a police officer. The murder of Officer Guy Gaddis took place during a robbery.
After pursuing arrest, the officer was fatally shot by Tamayo. The Bush and Obama administration had tried to convince Texas to give Tamayo and other prisoners with similar situations new hearings in order to prevent Americans from having similar arrests overseas. To add, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that setting an execution date for Tamayo would be "extremely detrimental for the interests of the United States". The Mexican government had been arguing that the execution of Tamayo was violating international law.
After reading several stories of Edgar Tamayo Arias, my opinion of the execution changed. The Bush and Obama administration were right to try to convince the state of Texas to have new hearings. By executing citizens of other countries, we are putting our own citizens in danger of the same convictions. By granting the felons new hearings, they would have gotten a new opinion on the case.
Although a new hearing may not change the outcome of the situation, it would have given the Mexican government a clearer reasoning as to why the conviction happened. I think the biggest problem of the case was that the state of Texas and the country of Mexico were not communication enough about the actual situation. By postponing the actual execution date, the state of Texas could have presented more positive evidence to the Mexican governement. If the communication between the state and the country was more in depth, the situation could have been more understandable for the Mexican government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)