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.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)