http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2013/11/29/entrepreneurs-whats-the-impact-of-the-obamacare-delay/
SUMMARY: This article talks about the economic impacts of the delay of the small business mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Small businesses will now have more time to set up exchanges to provide employees with health insurance. If they do not provide the insurance, they will have to pay $3000 per violation. These businesses could potentially get tax credits for some of the premiums paid. It may place a major strain on some businesses. In addition, another purpose for the delay was the rough roll-out of the Affordable Care Act which caused problems with people trying to get insurance and states trying to set up exchanges. It is feared that the delay of this mandate will cause premiums to increase. Overall, there are many concerns about the delay, but there are some potential benefits to the delay as well.
REACTION: I completely support the delay of the requirement for businesses to provide health insurance to employees. I am worried that it may have adverse effects on some small businesses. The profit margins on some of these businesses are actually quite slim. These companies cannot afford additional expenses. While the tax breaks may help them out, they will still be burdened by the ACA. The delay will only delay the impacts of this. While I believe that every American should have access to low-priced health insurance, I do not believe that the government has the right to tell businesses what expenses they should incur. That would require an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause to do. I do not see how enforcing health insurance requirements falls within the boundaries of interstate commerce. I think that a repeal of that part of the ACA would be beneficial. I support some parts of the ACA, such as penalizing hospitals with high rates of re admittance, but this is one part that is harmful to the American economy. I hope that within the time-frame for implementation of this part, that politicians come together to repeal this potentially economically harmful requirement. Overall, I do think that a delay is good, but a full repeal of that provision would be better.
CONNECTION: This connects to the powers of the presidency that we are learning about in class. There was no law to delay the provision, but the Department of Health and Human Services decided on the delay. This connects back to the enforcement power of the Bureaucracy. The Department of Health and Human Services oversees the enforcement of this provision, and thus has the power to announce a delay in this provision. Overall, this clearly shows the power of the bureaucracy to regulate.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
National Security 2 - Kline
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/julian-assange-unlikely-to-face-us-charges-over-publishing-classified-documents/2013/11/25/dd27decc-55f1-11e3-8304-caf30787c0a9_story.html
Summary: Julian Assange will most likely not be facing charges for publishing classified documents. The Justice Department has determined that although Assange published sensitive material and state secrets, he was not the one who leaked them. Acting as a reporter, Assange was deemed within his rights to publish the material. Assange's main defense in this case is that if the US were to pursue charges against him, charges would also need to be brought up against the New York Times and many other major news companies.
Reaction: I think that although it is important to find the right balance between freedom of speech and national security, that Assange did have the right to publish the secrets. However, it may not have been the most thought out plan to publish it due to the content.
Connection: This relates to the governments need to conduct safe national security policy and the first amendment, which we've talked about in class. This is also similar to supreme court cases we've talked about dealing with national security's priority over freedom of speech.
Summary: Julian Assange will most likely not be facing charges for publishing classified documents. The Justice Department has determined that although Assange published sensitive material and state secrets, he was not the one who leaked them. Acting as a reporter, Assange was deemed within his rights to publish the material. Assange's main defense in this case is that if the US were to pursue charges against him, charges would also need to be brought up against the New York Times and many other major news companies.
Reaction: I think that although it is important to find the right balance between freedom of speech and national security, that Assange did have the right to publish the secrets. However, it may not have been the most thought out plan to publish it due to the content.
Connection: This relates to the governments need to conduct safe national security policy and the first amendment, which we've talked about in class. This is also similar to supreme court cases we've talked about dealing with national security's priority over freedom of speech.
Weinstein Social Welfare #2
Summary: This article describes how political elections are affected by welfare. The journalist suggests that midterm elections will favor Republicans, which is typical as the Democrats hold the presidential office. However, he believes that the presidential race might again result in a Democratic victory. There are a greater number of families relying on government assistance, as 49.1% of people in 2011 received welfare compared to 30% in 1983. Americans who rely on these services vote for the candidates who promise to maintain, and in some cases increase, this aid. Democrats are more likely to gain the support of these voters. In 2012, 20% of voters had an annual income under $30,000, and of this group 63% voted for Obama while 35% favored Romney. Romney, in a conference call after losing the election, credited Obama’s success to his promises of expanding welfare.
Reaction: I am not overly surprised with the statements made in the article. A considerable number of Americans rely on some form of welfare, and it makes sense for those who receive it to favor the often Democratic candidate who promises to maintain government aid. Welfare plays a major role in elections and it is a critical issue in the nation. I am curious to know for which candidate the journalist voted during the 2012 elections as he seems to have a slight bias towards Romney. While many of Obama’s votes came from supporters of welfare, Romney made promises throughout his campaign as well, so I am unsure as to whether I believe that it was the primary reason Obama won the election. I believe the 2016 election could go to a Republican or a Democrat. It is difficult to predict a party’s success now as a lot can happen in two or three years.
Connection: This relates to the mandate theory of elections from chapter ten. According to this theory citizens vote for the candidate whose policy promises they favor, and consequently the election winner has mandate from the people to carry out the promised policies. Those who rely on some form of government aid support the nominee who will continue welfare programs. As we learned while studying political ideologies, Democrats frequently favor stronger government aid over Republicans. The expansion of welfare programs leads to a greater scope of government.
Environment #2 Matt Cassady
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-africa-sharks-tuna-20131125,0,393301.story#axzz2loTnobzK
Summary: is about a proposal to ban fishing of endangered shark called the porbeagle shark was blocked after the eight day meeting in Cape Town. In this proposal there was major Atlantic tuna and shark fishing nations according to people at the meeting. The porbeagle shark is very low in reproductive capacity. The ICCAT nations announced that force large fishing vessels to carry a unique identification number beginning in 2016, after illegal cases in West Africa with ships changing names and flags in order to evade sanctions over illegal fishing. But the one thing they will always stop you for is porbeagle shark fishing.
Reaction: My reaction is that it is a good thing that they put these laws into affect because if the shark species goes extinct then the food chain and food web would get messed up and will cause a disturbance in society. Also, that it is especially good for this species that they made it illegal to fish for theses sharks because they are at a low reproductive rate which will make it harder to bring these sharks back.
Connection: The connection to government for this article is that if a certain animal goes extinct then people will look at the government and ask why they didn't do more to help save that certain species. Also that it may have a small effect on the next election if they don't keep the environment a safe place for anyone.
Summary: is about a proposal to ban fishing of endangered shark called the porbeagle shark was blocked after the eight day meeting in Cape Town. In this proposal there was major Atlantic tuna and shark fishing nations according to people at the meeting. The porbeagle shark is very low in reproductive capacity. The ICCAT nations announced that force large fishing vessels to carry a unique identification number beginning in 2016, after illegal cases in West Africa with ships changing names and flags in order to evade sanctions over illegal fishing. But the one thing they will always stop you for is porbeagle shark fishing.
Reaction: My reaction is that it is a good thing that they put these laws into affect because if the shark species goes extinct then the food chain and food web would get messed up and will cause a disturbance in society. Also, that it is especially good for this species that they made it illegal to fish for theses sharks because they are at a low reproductive rate which will make it harder to bring these sharks back.
Connection: The connection to government for this article is that if a certain animal goes extinct then people will look at the government and ask why they didn't do more to help save that certain species. Also that it may have a small effect on the next election if they don't keep the environment a safe place for anyone.
Zach Mouw nat security Libya
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/28/not-acceptable-security-concerns-as-dhs-weighs-lifting-libya-restrictions/
Summary:
Since 1983, Libyan people have been restricted by homeland security in America to come to the U.S. to train in the aviation and nuclear fields of study. This restriction is being gradually lifted, as Libya has become a democracy and significantly less of a threat to be a source of terrorism. This decision by the Department of Homeland Security has run into strong opposition from republicans, who seem to be astounded that the Obama administration could overlook such an obvious terrorist threat. The DHS as well as many other Americans are behind this action though, and agree that our relationship with Libya is becoming much more stable than in previous years.
Reaction:
I think that for as much as people talk about "world peace" this would be a great stride to achieving this, and I am surprised lifting this restriction is debated at all. If the Department of Homeland Security thinks that it is safe to allow, I would have confidence in that judgment. Another thing that I found interesting is just how long we have had conflicts with Libya. I obviously heard all the news in the last couple years about overthrowing Quaddafi and the dictatorship, but I assumed that it was all recent developments that did not connect all the way back to the 80's.
Connection:
I would say that Republican politicians are acting with a delegate mindset by opposing this movement, as many of their constituents and voters most likely oppose it as well. It would be very detrimental to a politician's reputation to say that they endangered national security, especially is their voters are largely conservative.
Summary:
Since 1983, Libyan people have been restricted by homeland security in America to come to the U.S. to train in the aviation and nuclear fields of study. This restriction is being gradually lifted, as Libya has become a democracy and significantly less of a threat to be a source of terrorism. This decision by the Department of Homeland Security has run into strong opposition from republicans, who seem to be astounded that the Obama administration could overlook such an obvious terrorist threat. The DHS as well as many other Americans are behind this action though, and agree that our relationship with Libya is becoming much more stable than in previous years.
Reaction:
I think that for as much as people talk about "world peace" this would be a great stride to achieving this, and I am surprised lifting this restriction is debated at all. If the Department of Homeland Security thinks that it is safe to allow, I would have confidence in that judgment. Another thing that I found interesting is just how long we have had conflicts with Libya. I obviously heard all the news in the last couple years about overthrowing Quaddafi and the dictatorship, but I assumed that it was all recent developments that did not connect all the way back to the 80's.
Connection:
I would say that Republican politicians are acting with a delegate mindset by opposing this movement, as many of their constituents and voters most likely oppose it as well. It would be very detrimental to a politician's reputation to say that they endangered national security, especially is their voters are largely conservative.
Aimee Plante - Economics no. 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/white-house-democrats-economy_n_4322761.html
SUMMARY: Since the government shutdown and Affordable Care Act website slip-up, the government has been struggling to regain positive feedback from American voters. The Obama administration is currently attempting to push its economic agenda to draw citizens' attention from the recent setbacks to brighten their image in comparison to Republicans. Vice President Joe Biden, along with cabinet members, is travelling around the country to share the details of current plans for college access for disadvantaged students and an increased minimum wage. By doing so, the Obama administration hopes to regain some trust for the Democratic party despite current issues with the roll-out of Obamacare.
REACTION: I am not entirely sure if this is due to the article or the topic in general, but the whole scheme to increase trust in the Democratic party seems pretty vague. I want to know exactly what promises are being made about college access and minimum wage, but everywhere I look, there are no details. I do not like to assume empty promises are being made, but if we are only being told that there are plans for something to change, I'd like to know exactly what those plans are. Also (this may be because the article seemed a tad biased), the idea of pushing for a new issue merely to lessen focus on a governmental mistake does not seem like an ethical move.
CONNECTION: This article relates to the two-party system's constant competition to promote the amount of potential voters in the next election. Since voters tend to blame the issues of one presidency on the entire party and vote for the other party in the next election, the Democrats are attempting to mend their public image now in order to save their chances of winning again come election time. Parties, even if they already have majority control of the government, must constantly monitor their perception among the American people to stand a chance to remain in power.
SUMMARY: Since the government shutdown and Affordable Care Act website slip-up, the government has been struggling to regain positive feedback from American voters. The Obama administration is currently attempting to push its economic agenda to draw citizens' attention from the recent setbacks to brighten their image in comparison to Republicans. Vice President Joe Biden, along with cabinet members, is travelling around the country to share the details of current plans for college access for disadvantaged students and an increased minimum wage. By doing so, the Obama administration hopes to regain some trust for the Democratic party despite current issues with the roll-out of Obamacare.
REACTION: I am not entirely sure if this is due to the article or the topic in general, but the whole scheme to increase trust in the Democratic party seems pretty vague. I want to know exactly what promises are being made about college access and minimum wage, but everywhere I look, there are no details. I do not like to assume empty promises are being made, but if we are only being told that there are plans for something to change, I'd like to know exactly what those plans are. Also (this may be because the article seemed a tad biased), the idea of pushing for a new issue merely to lessen focus on a governmental mistake does not seem like an ethical move.
CONNECTION: This article relates to the two-party system's constant competition to promote the amount of potential voters in the next election. Since voters tend to blame the issues of one presidency on the entire party and vote for the other party in the next election, the Democrats are attempting to mend their public image now in order to save their chances of winning again come election time. Parties, even if they already have majority control of the government, must constantly monitor their perception among the American people to stand a chance to remain in power.
Vincent Social Welfare #2
Summary: Los Angeles has the second largest population of homeless residents in the nation, following only New York City. As the Greater West Hollywood Food Coalition began trying to combat this issue, neighborhood watch programs began attempting to close down their operations. At exactly 6:15 every night, the coalition’s truck filled with food feeds approximately 200 hungry people. The problem is, once these hungry people have been fed, they have nowhere to go. They stick around even after the truck leaves, sleeping on sidewalks and in people’s yards. These people have become enraged by the increasing number of inhabitants living in their neighborhood streets. They argue that the coalition needs to provide restrooms and shelters if they are going to be distributing food in this area. But the coalition does not have the means to accomplish such a huge task. They are determined to focus on the same goal they’ve had for the last 27 years: to feed the hungry. Because as many of the recipients told reporters, this is the only way to many of the homeless can eat.
Reaction: I understand that families are worried about the squatters living in their front lawn but I am angered that they are willing to deprive people of meals. Instead of donating money or trying to fix the problem, the homeowners are simply trying to ban the coalition. I think this is incredibly petty and selfish. I honestly can’t believe anyone could look at a person in this situation and take what little they have away from them.
Connection: This situation mirrors that of a divided government which causes a gridlock. One side, the coalition, is determined to stay where they are. Another side, the homeowners, are determined to move the coalition elsewhere. Because both sides are so firm and so different in their beliefs, compromise is not achieved. Neither side has accomplished anything because they are unwilling to look at the other viewpoints.
Matt Ernster Enviroment; Post #6
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/nyregion/queens-industrial-site-to-be-considered-for-superfund-status.html
Summary: Recently the Environmental Protection Agency found an industrial site, in Ridgewood, Queens, that contained radioactive material. The property was previously used by Wolf-Alport Chemical Company, who sold materials to the federal government to help them research atomic bombs. It is reported that people who walk by the site frequently or work at nearby facilities may be at a higher risk of cancer. Workers at an auto shop were told that it would not effect them unless they were near it for 20 hours a day. But the EPA states that after about 40 years, serious problems may occur. The auto company has been around the area for 14 years, and only learned about the issue just a year ago. After an entire year of collecting data, government agencies decided that further cleanup should be required. The site is now nearing Superfund status. Superfund is a federal law that designed to clean up sites with contaminated or hazardous substances. If the site can be nominated onto the National Priorities List, a law program to clean up the US's most dangerous sites, it can be awarded a grant and a major cleanup can occur. Getting onto this list however, may take years.
Reaction: This seems to be a serious problem for anybody who has to be around something like this for so long every day. It seems ridiculous that the government would allow for such a site to be monitored and not properly cleaned up for such a long time. In addition, for it to take years before a cleanup is ever officially started just seems out of hand. I know that the people in the surrounding area can just move away, but they need to be compensated by either the federal government or the Wolf-Alport company.
Connection: This connects to our AP government class and our real government because of the many policies and laws that surround it. For starters, the site was originally funded or supported by our own federal government for nuclear research. Also, the Superfund and National Priorities List are examples of laws and organizations that were created by the government to regulate such environmental issues.
Summary: Recently the Environmental Protection Agency found an industrial site, in Ridgewood, Queens, that contained radioactive material. The property was previously used by Wolf-Alport Chemical Company, who sold materials to the federal government to help them research atomic bombs. It is reported that people who walk by the site frequently or work at nearby facilities may be at a higher risk of cancer. Workers at an auto shop were told that it would not effect them unless they were near it for 20 hours a day. But the EPA states that after about 40 years, serious problems may occur. The auto company has been around the area for 14 years, and only learned about the issue just a year ago. After an entire year of collecting data, government agencies decided that further cleanup should be required. The site is now nearing Superfund status. Superfund is a federal law that designed to clean up sites with contaminated or hazardous substances. If the site can be nominated onto the National Priorities List, a law program to clean up the US's most dangerous sites, it can be awarded a grant and a major cleanup can occur. Getting onto this list however, may take years.
Reaction: This seems to be a serious problem for anybody who has to be around something like this for so long every day. It seems ridiculous that the government would allow for such a site to be monitored and not properly cleaned up for such a long time. In addition, for it to take years before a cleanup is ever officially started just seems out of hand. I know that the people in the surrounding area can just move away, but they need to be compensated by either the federal government or the Wolf-Alport company.
Connection: This connects to our AP government class and our real government because of the many policies and laws that surround it. For starters, the site was originally funded or supported by our own federal government for nuclear research. Also, the Superfund and National Priorities List are examples of laws and organizations that were created by the government to regulate such environmental issues.
National Security #6
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obama-adviser-susan-rice-in-afghanistan/
Summary: our long term security pact may be in jeopardy after Afghan President Hamid Karzai created new demand that involved having US troops withdraw after 2014. He stated that he was not going to sign the agreement with Susan Rice, but the white house stated that he wanted new conditions if he was going to sign it. In order for him to sign this, he requested that the US pulls out after 2014. If their was no signature, there would be no US or NATO troops present in Afghanistan post-2014. Karzai stated that he will not back down from his decision. The US has tried to make him change his mind, but he is sticking to what he demanded. Anither demand is that he wants us to release all Afghani prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Currently, there are 20 prisoners from Afghanistan that are held in the prison on Cuba. He also requested that our forces do not raid other Afghan homes and also try to initiate peace talks with the Taliban. If he were to sign this, we would keep about 8,000 troops in Afghanistan. The rest of this article is about making trips to see Karzai, and try to make him sign this deal.
Reaction: I believe that we need this man to sign. I think that we still need to watch over Afghanistan because I they are still insecure. Having military force will make it safer for us, and those who live in Afghanistan. I believe we could consider giving some prisoners who are in Guantanamo Bay back, but their needs to be some kind of compromise between us and them.
Connection: this relates to AP gov because our country has the duty to take the necessary precautions to protect their citizens. Also, they need to still help Afghanistan rebuild unless we want another war. It is our job as a top country, to help aid other countries and help them up on their feet.
Environment #2- Morgan Estok
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/world/pentagon-releases-strategy-for-arctic.html?ref=earth
Summary: This article talks about the rising tensions between countries, for natural resources, in the warming Arctic. The U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released the Pentagon's "Arctic Strategy" which outlines how the U.S. will deal with security and and the environment near Alaska and around the Arctic region. The rising global temperatures have began to melt polar ice caps, resulting in a tough competition between countries such as China and Russia for natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. The "Arctic Strategy" outlines the Pentagon's plans to "detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats to the United States" as we maintain sovereignty over Alaska and the region. There has been an increase in interest in the area and that has the potential to create conflict. It's not necessarily the rising temperatures that cause it, but it adds to "global instability, hunger, and poverty" in the region. The Pentagon has also discussed with the Defense Department about plans to adapt the U.S. Naval fleet to the changing climate, to preserve freedom in the polar region.
Reaction: What I really like about the whole "Arctic Strategy" is that our country is obviously being prepared and I think preparedness is an extremely good asset to have. We aren't spending huge mounds of money or over-stepping other countries boundaries, we are simply being ready in our own Alaskan region for any conflict that may arise. It's a very responsible move for the Pentagon because it's obvious that they are aware that countries such as Russia and China may pay no attention to the arctic environment in their attempt to gain resources. We are sort of taking a defensive for the environment and that's what I really like about the strategy.
Connection: This ties in with the good things that Congress does that we don't see. We usually don't hear about them passing legislation, we only hear about them being in a gridlock or not being able to pass anything. This strategy plan may not have come from Congress, but I'm sure pieces of legislation regarding protecting Alaska and the polar regions have come through (and been passed) in Congress. I'm sure there have also been interest groups who have spent time lobbying in DC about the rising climate temperatures and the effects that would have on all factors of involvement, specifically economic.
Summary: This article talks about the rising tensions between countries, for natural resources, in the warming Arctic. The U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel released the Pentagon's "Arctic Strategy" which outlines how the U.S. will deal with security and and the environment near Alaska and around the Arctic region. The rising global temperatures have began to melt polar ice caps, resulting in a tough competition between countries such as China and Russia for natural resources, such as oil and natural gas. The "Arctic Strategy" outlines the Pentagon's plans to "detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats to the United States" as we maintain sovereignty over Alaska and the region. There has been an increase in interest in the area and that has the potential to create conflict. It's not necessarily the rising temperatures that cause it, but it adds to "global instability, hunger, and poverty" in the region. The Pentagon has also discussed with the Defense Department about plans to adapt the U.S. Naval fleet to the changing climate, to preserve freedom in the polar region.
Reaction: What I really like about the whole "Arctic Strategy" is that our country is obviously being prepared and I think preparedness is an extremely good asset to have. We aren't spending huge mounds of money or over-stepping other countries boundaries, we are simply being ready in our own Alaskan region for any conflict that may arise. It's a very responsible move for the Pentagon because it's obvious that they are aware that countries such as Russia and China may pay no attention to the arctic environment in their attempt to gain resources. We are sort of taking a defensive for the environment and that's what I really like about the strategy.
Connection: This ties in with the good things that Congress does that we don't see. We usually don't hear about them passing legislation, we only hear about them being in a gridlock or not being able to pass anything. This strategy plan may not have come from Congress, but I'm sure pieces of legislation regarding protecting Alaska and the polar regions have come through (and been passed) in Congress. I'm sure there have also been interest groups who have spent time lobbying in DC about the rising climate temperatures and the effects that would have on all factors of involvement, specifically economic.
Fredy Stroker Social Welfare #6
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022333849_minumumwagexml.html
Summary: California is pushing to up the minimum wage from $8 to $10 by 2015 and and $12 by 2016. They say that this will would help curb government spending on social services and make jobs more appealing to U.S. born workers, dropping the unemployment rate. Thus, this will drop government spending. Critics believe that this will hurt the U.S, labeling the bill a "Job killer". They believe this bill will increase the unemployment rate and put the state of California's economy at risk.
Reaction: I believe that this bill would benefit California and it's economy. By jobs willing to pay more, people who live off social welfare programs may be willing to get a job. This is because the more money they make would be enough to support their family. By this, the government will not have to spend so much money on social welfare programs. So, employment will go up, and California will have more money to spend.
Connection: This relates to congress and passing bills which we just learned about. Some people don't agree with some bills and don't sign off on them. Some people in California believe that this bill would be detrimental to the state, making it a challenge for the people behind this bill and supporters to get it passed.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022333849_minumumwagexml.html
Summary: California is pushing to up the minimum wage from $8 to $10 by 2015 and and $12 by 2016. They say that this will would help curb government spending on social services and make jobs more appealing to U.S. born workers, dropping the unemployment rate. Thus, this will drop government spending. Critics believe that this will hurt the U.S, labeling the bill a "Job killer". They believe this bill will increase the unemployment rate and put the state of California's economy at risk.
Reaction: I believe that this bill would benefit California and it's economy. By jobs willing to pay more, people who live off social welfare programs may be willing to get a job. This is because the more money they make would be enough to support their family. By this, the government will not have to spend so much money on social welfare programs. So, employment will go up, and California will have more money to spend.
Connection: This relates to congress and passing bills which we just learned about. Some people don't agree with some bills and don't sign off on them. Some people in California believe that this bill would be detrimental to the state, making it a challenge for the people behind this bill and supporters to get it passed.
Carter Himmelman National Security 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/asia/obamas-national-security-adviser-meets-with-karzai.html?_r=0
Obama's visiting Security adviser tells Karzai to sign agreement
Summary: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan E. Rise. He visited her to tell President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan on Monday. They told him to stop the delay or potentially face the complete and final pullout of American troops by the end of 2014, according to officials. Karzai said he would sign the deal at some point. He said he would sign it when America releases inmates in Guantanamo bay. This has added to crises of the nations. One official from the US said that they have no choice but to plan to pull the troops out by 2014. Which there would be no U.S. or NATO troops in Afghanistan. One official from Afghanistan said that Karzai would sign the bill next April, while they continue to negotiate. America's main goal from this agreement is to get the troops out of Afghanistan. On the other side Karzai wants the inmates out of prison.
Reflection: I think that they should sign this agreement. But there needs to be more negotiating. I think its a great idea that they want to get the troops out. They have been fighting there for a long time and many people have lost there lives. I think we could give back some inmates. We should put the inmates on trial and we give the ones back that are innocent. Or the ones that have not committed big crimes.
Connection: This article connects our class for many reasons. One reason is that Afghanistan is wanting a hadous corpus. They want there prisoners back from us. This is like one of the cases that happened in class about the driver.
National Security Post #2 Kinyon
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/defense-bill-caught-congress-political-divide-20994469
SUMMARY: The Senate has failed to come up with an agreement on the defense spending bill. One of the main disagreements is whether to levy new sanctions against Iran, which Harry Reid opposes. The projected budget is $625 billion. The bill has been quite slow in moving through Congress. Many Republicans are angry that they are not being allowed to offer amendments to the bill. Currently, there are dozens of proposed amendments on the bill. This Congress has been quite ineffective at passing legislation, and the defense bill is just one example of a bill that has faced trouble. Money for personnel, war-fighting equipment, and the conflict and Afghanistan will be jeopardized if a compromise cannot be made. Many Senators are disheartened at the Senate's inability to reach a compromise. John McCain even stated that the bill was at an all time low.
REACTION: It is quite sad that this bill has been stalled on the Senate floor. Defense spending is critical, and it is detrimental to our national defense that a deal on spending cannot be reached. I think that the $625 billion is a fair allocation to the defense budget. It represents as slight increase from the previous year, which is understandable. This bill has already gone through the committees to reach the Senate floor. I am slightly angry that amendments are not allowed to be added to the bill, as amendments are important parts of compromising on a bill. It seems that the debate is stuck. Naturally, the legislative process makes legislating slow in itself, but this seems to be extra slow. I hope that our Senators will be able to compromise on the bill, but I am pessimistic that such a compromise will be reached. There is just too much disagreement on the bill. Perhaps it would be better to wait until the situation in Iran becomes clearer, but it is necessary to pass the bill before the December 9 deadline. Overall, this article has made me less confident in our Congress' ability to come to a solution to pass an important defense bill.
CONNECTION: Currently, we are learning about the legislative process in class. The bill was proposed in the Senate, and has already passed through the appropriate committees and subcommittees. Currently, the Senate is in the process of debating the bill. Since there are so many steps in the process, and so many places where the bill can die, it is quite hard to pass a bill in Congress. This has led to a slower legislative process filled with conflict and arguments. That is what we have seen in the debate over the defense bill. Overall, the defense bill shows the slowness that is created by the structure of the legislative process.
SUMMARY: The Senate has failed to come up with an agreement on the defense spending bill. One of the main disagreements is whether to levy new sanctions against Iran, which Harry Reid opposes. The projected budget is $625 billion. The bill has been quite slow in moving through Congress. Many Republicans are angry that they are not being allowed to offer amendments to the bill. Currently, there are dozens of proposed amendments on the bill. This Congress has been quite ineffective at passing legislation, and the defense bill is just one example of a bill that has faced trouble. Money for personnel, war-fighting equipment, and the conflict and Afghanistan will be jeopardized if a compromise cannot be made. Many Senators are disheartened at the Senate's inability to reach a compromise. John McCain even stated that the bill was at an all time low.
REACTION: It is quite sad that this bill has been stalled on the Senate floor. Defense spending is critical, and it is detrimental to our national defense that a deal on spending cannot be reached. I think that the $625 billion is a fair allocation to the defense budget. It represents as slight increase from the previous year, which is understandable. This bill has already gone through the committees to reach the Senate floor. I am slightly angry that amendments are not allowed to be added to the bill, as amendments are important parts of compromising on a bill. It seems that the debate is stuck. Naturally, the legislative process makes legislating slow in itself, but this seems to be extra slow. I hope that our Senators will be able to compromise on the bill, but I am pessimistic that such a compromise will be reached. There is just too much disagreement on the bill. Perhaps it would be better to wait until the situation in Iran becomes clearer, but it is necessary to pass the bill before the December 9 deadline. Overall, this article has made me less confident in our Congress' ability to come to a solution to pass an important defense bill.
CONNECTION: Currently, we are learning about the legislative process in class. The bill was proposed in the Senate, and has already passed through the appropriate committees and subcommittees. Currently, the Senate is in the process of debating the bill. Since there are so many steps in the process, and so many places where the bill can die, it is quite hard to pass a bill in Congress. This has led to a slower legislative process filled with conflict and arguments. That is what we have seen in the debate over the defense bill. Overall, the defense bill shows the slowness that is created by the structure of the legislative process.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Maya D - Environment 2
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/forests-un-climate-talks-warsaw
Summary- This article goes over the recent decision ,ads my the US, UK, and Norway to put over $280 million into rebuilding forests and ending deforestation at the United Nations Climate Change Talks. The money for this seemingly new project is coming from old projects including the budget of the REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. This is viewed badly by some who say that it is taking money away from the original project while others say that it is beneficiary to both projects because the REDD+ project will finally be started after 6 years of being in the works. The rest of the money will be out up by the countries themselves and the World Bank. Some advocates of the environment argue that this idea was wrongly put into place. They say that we should focus more on creating clean energy instead of trying to grow back the trees that we've already cut down and that this projects need a lot more money than it was given to actually be successful.
Reaction- This article surprised me because I filigreed our government would never give that much money towards protecting the environment. My thoughts were proven right when I read further to see that compared to the UK's $120million input and Norway's input of $135million our contribution if $25million was weak. I'm not sure how this bill we be put into effect because of the land usage in America. I do agree, though, with the group that said that we should've focused more on clean energy. By putting our money towards clean energy we would've reaped the same benefits without having to cut the amount of land for agriculture.
Connection- This connects to what we've been learning because certain members of congress can have their own committees to be in or lead. In this case the Secretary of State, John Kerry, had the environment as his committee. This allowed him to voice his opinions at the United Nations Climate Change Talk and come back with $25 million to spend and a new program to employ.
Summary- This article goes over the recent decision ,ads my the US, UK, and Norway to put over $280 million into rebuilding forests and ending deforestation at the United Nations Climate Change Talks. The money for this seemingly new project is coming from old projects including the budget of the REDD+ (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. This is viewed badly by some who say that it is taking money away from the original project while others say that it is beneficiary to both projects because the REDD+ project will finally be started after 6 years of being in the works. The rest of the money will be out up by the countries themselves and the World Bank. Some advocates of the environment argue that this idea was wrongly put into place. They say that we should focus more on creating clean energy instead of trying to grow back the trees that we've already cut down and that this projects need a lot more money than it was given to actually be successful.
Reaction- This article surprised me because I filigreed our government would never give that much money towards protecting the environment. My thoughts were proven right when I read further to see that compared to the UK's $120million input and Norway's input of $135million our contribution if $25million was weak. I'm not sure how this bill we be put into effect because of the land usage in America. I do agree, though, with the group that said that we should've focused more on clean energy. By putting our money towards clean energy we would've reaped the same benefits without having to cut the amount of land for agriculture.
Connection- This connects to what we've been learning because certain members of congress can have their own committees to be in or lead. In this case the Secretary of State, John Kerry, had the environment as his committee. This allowed him to voice his opinions at the United Nations Climate Change Talk and come back with $25 million to spend and a new program to employ.
Alexis Tansey - Social Welfare #2
http://nypost.com/2013/08/19/when-welfare-pays-better-than-work/
Summary: The federal government funds many welfare programs. There are about 72 programs that benefit individuals while the rest benefit communities and neighborhoods. While wages are taxed, welfare benefits are not. Someone would have to make roughly $21 an hour to do better than they would do on welfare in New York. This is more than most teachers make at entry-level. The reforms and benefits of welfare vary from state to state. For many recipients, welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job. Surveys show that people on welfare are actively looking for work. However, if you pay someone more not to work than to work, they are probably going to choose to not work. Such generous welfare benefits may actually be hurting the recipients in the long run. The author believes that a policy preference of work over welfare should be put into action and that the benefits of welfare should be reduced.
Reaction: I agree with the author of this article. People should not just be handed money like this. I think that the government should help people in need, but they need to help themselves as well. It is not fair for government to just hand out money while some people are actually working for the same amount. I agree that a policy preference of work over welfare should be created.
Connection:We have discussed the differences between political ideologies and how divided government can create gridlock. Welfare and other entitlements are long term problems but our leaders will not get together and compromise on solutions. Some people, like this author, think that welfare benefits should be reduced. On the other hand, others disagree.
Summary: The federal government funds many welfare programs. There are about 72 programs that benefit individuals while the rest benefit communities and neighborhoods. While wages are taxed, welfare benefits are not. Someone would have to make roughly $21 an hour to do better than they would do on welfare in New York. This is more than most teachers make at entry-level. The reforms and benefits of welfare vary from state to state. For many recipients, welfare pays substantially more than an entry-level job. Surveys show that people on welfare are actively looking for work. However, if you pay someone more not to work than to work, they are probably going to choose to not work. Such generous welfare benefits may actually be hurting the recipients in the long run. The author believes that a policy preference of work over welfare should be put into action and that the benefits of welfare should be reduced.
Reaction: I agree with the author of this article. People should not just be handed money like this. I think that the government should help people in need, but they need to help themselves as well. It is not fair for government to just hand out money while some people are actually working for the same amount. I agree that a policy preference of work over welfare should be created.
Connection:We have discussed the differences between political ideologies and how divided government can create gridlock. Welfare and other entitlements are long term problems but our leaders will not get together and compromise on solutions. Some people, like this author, think that welfare benefits should be reduced. On the other hand, others disagree.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Katherine Baer: Environment #2
Summary: According to the International Joint Commission, only half of drugs and contaminants in sewage are removed by treatment plants. The commission discovered traces of antibiotics and chemicals in the Great Lakes. According to the article, 4.8 billion gallons of treated water is poured into the Great Lake basin daily - which could be potentially contaminated. Six different chemicals and antibiotics have been found regularly in treated water and investigators discovered that treatment plants have low levels of removal for these types of contaminants. Shockingly, these same contaminants have been found in drinking water at very low levels. The International Joint Commission is not sure how the contaminated water will affect humans, but they have seen an increase in algae growth and slower reaction time in fish. New technology is currently being tested to promote better sewage treatment.
Reaction: I was surprised that drugs and chemicals were found in a fresh water source like the Great Lakes. I generally assume that the water I drink is clean, and don't think twice before drinking it. I definitely take this for granted and don't necessarily realize how the system could be flawed and could affect my health. Clearly the drugs and chemicals that were found in drinking water were at minute levels, but I still find this concerning. I understand that no system is perfect, but I still think that actions should be taken to prevent contaminants from getting in our water and the water in which aquatic organisms live. I am glad to hear that new technology is being tested to prevent this problem from getting out of hand.
Connection: The article said that there are currently no federal regulations of pharmaceuticals in waste or drinking water. This sounds like something an environmental interest group or PAC would be interested in discussing with government officials. I assume that environmentalists would not be pleased by this, and would expect an interest group to take action to create a policy that would prohibit pharmaceuticals in waste and drinking water. From what I have learned in AP Gov, an environmental interest group could bring the issue to the attention of government officials through lobbying, litigating, electioneering, and going public. Also, the media may play a role in promoting this issue and causing it to be seen by more Americans and take a spot on the policy agenda.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=only-half-of-drugs-removed-by-sewage-treatment
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Fredy Stroker - Social Welfare #5
http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2013-10-21-85525.113122-Prisoners-still-receiving-social-welfare-benefits-audit-finds.html
Summary: An audit conducted for 5 counties in the state of New York showed that hundreds of jail member receiving inappropriate welfare benefits and employment insurance while still in jail. From January 1st, 2011 to March 1st of 2013, inmates had used 236,000 in various social welfare programs and 324,000 in state unemployment insurance. In New York, the Department of Social Services (Dss) conduct tests or deem who is eligible for social welfare. They argue it's hard deeming eligibility once they are incarcerate because inmates eligibility changes frequently because they are awaiting trial or serving short court-order sentences.
Reaction: I found this very surprising to me. My questions would be Of what happens of inmates with family's that are on welfare? Can they still be on welfare but not them? I am also astonished on how the DSS can mess these tests up to deem the eligibility for social welfare. I don't think it's that hard to know whether someone is an inmate or not. I believe this is wrong because this is a waste of tax payer money. This welfare money is going to someone already incarcerated in a jail that is also paid for by the peoples taxes. This is why we are in such bad national debt.
Connection: This connects to polling things that we've learned in class. In polling, people fill out questionnaires, and they do as well from the DSS to see whether or not they are deemed eligible for social programs. The DSS conducts these tests and sends them out just like people who work for polls.
Weinstein Social Welfare #1
Summary: This article describes how the welfare system has evolved overtime, and focuses mainly on single women who receive this financial support. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, he assured the American people that he would end this system, and throughout President Ronald Reagan’s campaign, the candidate repeatedly mentioned what was known as the “welfare queen”, or one who manipulates the welfare system to get more money. For example, a person may file for this assistance using different identities in order to be granted twice the benefits. However, as decades pass, fewer families are relying on cash and vouchers. Also, there is a higher rate of employment among single women who are less educated. According to the story, in 1997, nearly 3.94 million families were given direct financial assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In 2012, however, only about 1.72 million families in the nation were recipients this same aid. Also, in 2011, about 62% of single mothers (aged 20-49) with a high school degrees were employed. This is down from 76% in 2000, but that was before the recession. The recipients of TANF, in most states, can only collect its money for five years, and the program requires all those who receive its benefits to do twenty to thirty hours of “work-related activities” including job hunting or community service. While single moms with little education today are less likely to need constant aid, it is increasingly difficult for them to find a steady job and receive a satisfactory paycheck. According to the US Census Bureau, 41% of households with children under the age of 18 being raised by less educated single women were living in poverty in 2011. While a low income job is unfavorable, it is, according to the article, better than living off of meager welfare checks. However, TANF has been successful in helping poverty-stricken people get back on their feet.
Reaction: I fully support the TANF program. The work requirements help to ensure that those who are in need are doing everything they can to turn their lives around, but it still gives them support. I am impressed that there are fewer families relying on some form of welfare, but I am happy that aid still available. My hope is that by benefiting from TANF, the children of single mothers will realize the importance of getting a good education which leads to strong workers for future generations. The lower employment rate of women in this situation shows the effects of the recession, but it gives me hope that the percentage will continue to rise.
Connection: We have discussed the standpoints of the two major political parties on a variety of issues including government aid. I was surprised to read that President Clinton, a Democrat, was against the welfare program, but after reading into it more it seems that he was in favor of it becoming a second option for those in need, not a way of life. President Reagan opposed the system and described the “welfare queen”. Oftentimes Republican’s feel that there should be work requirements for the recipients of government aid. It is impossible to please everyone on every issue, but TANF seems to appeal to both parties by requiring those who receive welfare to work in some way, but still provide aid to the desperate.
Alex Connor Enviroment
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/business/economy/unavoidable-answer-to-problem-of-climate-change.html?ref=earth
Unavoidable Answer for the Problem of Climate Change
Summarize: To summarize the article that I read about the environment, it is basically saying that an unavoidable answer to the climate change and limited fossil fuels that we have left is, nuclear power. Nuclear power is greater than for example solar and wind power because it is always reliable and will be there. Instead of burning fossils and emitting CO2 into the air, nuclear energy is an alternative energy that works. Wind is not always around and the sun doesn't always shine. Globally, not as many people that have been around radioactivity have died, and only a few have gotten cancer from it. This shows the saftey that nuclear energy can secure along with benefiting our environment. Japan is one of the front runners in using nuclear energy because they are trying to cut back on reliance on fossil fuels and create a better air quality that prevents or slows climate change.
Reaction: I would have never guessed that nuclear energy was such a big importance. I had also not really linked our burning of fossil fuels to the rapid change in climate and air quality. If we use more nuclear power- along with solar and wind, we could defiantly cut back on how much CO2 is emitted into the air. Overall I think it is a good idea to become more reliant on a different more effective energy source to help us weasel our way out of fossil fuels that are not only damaging our environment but growing extinct.
Connection: My connection to this is that globally, our nations are getting together to help solve issues and figure out better solutions to important problems. Without the nations leaders getting together, we would all have no clue what was going on with each other in this world that we live in. This is sort of like in times of war when the nations would get together to create treaties and make allies and solve issues. Except this is a war against the environment.
Matt Ernster - Enviroment Post #5
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/business/energy-environment/chevron-assails-lawyer-who-led-multibillion-dollar-suit-against-it.html?ref=earth
Summary: Recently a lawyer who in the past sued Chevron for very large amounts of money has been brought back into the spotlight. The lawyer had previously sued Chevron for 18 billion dollars (only receiving 9.5 by the end) for dumping toxic waste with an unsafe location of disposal. Emails from during the case were brought into question. The lawyer frequently uses terms like "puppet" and "puppeteer" in the emails, as if to suggest bribing of the judge. The lawyer denies anything like this and says that he was simply joking. This is still being brought under review.
Reaction: I think that something like this needs to be taken very seriously. If bribing of judges can take place, then nobody is truly safe in the legal system. Court cases should be further researched and nobody should be fully trusted while hearing them. I also think it is ridiculous that Chevron was able to dump toxic materials for a very long time before anything like this ever happened. 9.5 billion may seem like a huge number, but it is most likely what Chevron deserved.
Connection: The legal system creates a large part of our governments new policies and rulings over certain issues. If the courts are not legitimate in the way that these types of cases are carried out, then more fraud may occur. This is important to our government because truth and viable laws are essential to keeping a democracy and its people in line. We learn about many of the policies and cases made in court, and we should stay informed about our environment so we can create logical stands when issues like the health of our environment come up in our future.
Summary: Recently a lawyer who in the past sued Chevron for very large amounts of money has been brought back into the spotlight. The lawyer had previously sued Chevron for 18 billion dollars (only receiving 9.5 by the end) for dumping toxic waste with an unsafe location of disposal. Emails from during the case were brought into question. The lawyer frequently uses terms like "puppet" and "puppeteer" in the emails, as if to suggest bribing of the judge. The lawyer denies anything like this and says that he was simply joking. This is still being brought under review.
Reaction: I think that something like this needs to be taken very seriously. If bribing of judges can take place, then nobody is truly safe in the legal system. Court cases should be further researched and nobody should be fully trusted while hearing them. I also think it is ridiculous that Chevron was able to dump toxic materials for a very long time before anything like this ever happened. 9.5 billion may seem like a huge number, but it is most likely what Chevron deserved.
Connection: The legal system creates a large part of our governments new policies and rulings over certain issues. If the courts are not legitimate in the way that these types of cases are carried out, then more fraud may occur. This is important to our government because truth and viable laws are essential to keeping a democracy and its people in line. We learn about many of the policies and cases made in court, and we should stay informed about our environment so we can create logical stands when issues like the health of our environment come up in our future.
The Fifth Chuck Klutho I, National Security
Summary- The Department of Defense is the largest consumer of energy in the world, spending more than $20 billion last year and using over 5 billion gallons of oil last year. Due to this extreme dependence on the largely electronic power grid, the U.S. is prone to a major cyberattack on our energy grid. With the energy grid being valued at more than $1 trillion it could knock down the U.S. very much so. In fact attempts at hacking into parts of the power grid occur everyday, in some places thousands of attacks can happen in just a month, all of these attacks cost the U.S. billions of dollars a year. Also 31 of the D.O.D.'s most important assets are relient completely on outside commercial energy for power, this is leaving us open for a "cyber Pearl Harbor". However, this can be thwarted with less relience on outside energy, using alternative and renewable energy, and also to stop putting so much faith into the grid in general.
Reaction- I did not realize how many attacks occur everyday by the Internet trying to gt into our power grid and shut it down. Also I didn't realize how much we rely on one, singular power grid with nearly all of our Department of Defense assets and programs. Along with that how much money the D.O.D. uses on energy alone, accounting for more than 80 percent of the federal governments energy consumption.
Connection- A connection of this article to what we have discussed in class is that interest groups, may make up some of assets of the D.O.D., they most certainly use the power grid to transfer assets, and some of those interest groups may have lobbyists pushing for the use of more renewable energy. These lobbyists would most likely have layed down some of these facts and shown we rely too much on the power grid, and that by not putting so much faith in it, especially with all of the attempted attacks, we can make our country safer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-sandry/solar-energy-could-be-ame_b_4277397.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Reaction- I did not realize how many attacks occur everyday by the Internet trying to gt into our power grid and shut it down. Also I didn't realize how much we rely on one, singular power grid with nearly all of our Department of Defense assets and programs. Along with that how much money the D.O.D. uses on energy alone, accounting for more than 80 percent of the federal governments energy consumption.
Connection- A connection of this article to what we have discussed in class is that interest groups, may make up some of assets of the D.O.D., they most certainly use the power grid to transfer assets, and some of those interest groups may have lobbyists pushing for the use of more renewable energy. These lobbyists would most likely have layed down some of these facts and shown we rely too much on the power grid, and that by not putting so much faith in it, especially with all of the attempted attacks, we can make our country safer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-sandry/solar-energy-could-be-ame_b_4277397.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Zach Mouw national security
http://rt.com/usa/banning-undetectable-plastic-firearms-697/
Summary:
New strides in 3-D printing technology have developed a plastic firearm that is unable to be found by metal detectors. These firearms would not be able to make it past airport security, but could easily be smuggled into sporting events and other facilities with only basic metal detectors. The undetectable firearms act is set to expire on Dec. 9, and politicians are calling to outlaw plastic firearms completely when the bill is restructured. Both democratic and republican senators were cited in their support of this movement. The new plastic technology is still very expensive and difficult to obtain.
Reaction:
I think that the fact that both parties in congress are so quick to agree on this, relates how much of a no-brainer it would be to ban these firearms. It seems like an awful shooting or terrorist attack just waiting to happen, and is a very necessary precaution to take. No matter what your opinion on gun laws are, I believe that it is undisputable that these firearms are even necessary to exist, at least on the domestic level. I would think that most representatives would also be in favor of the ban, since a politicians image would be virtually destroyed if an unfortunate shooting would happen because of their vote.
Connection:
This article can be connected to our in class topics because senators and house members, no matter their party affiliation, are mostly supportive of banning the guns. This is probably because it is a very popular standpoint among independent voters, therefore going against those voters would sharply decrease a representative's chances of reelection. So basically this article indirectly connects to party affiliation as well as a display of how incumbency benefits politicians in reelection campaigns.
Summary:
New strides in 3-D printing technology have developed a plastic firearm that is unable to be found by metal detectors. These firearms would not be able to make it past airport security, but could easily be smuggled into sporting events and other facilities with only basic metal detectors. The undetectable firearms act is set to expire on Dec. 9, and politicians are calling to outlaw plastic firearms completely when the bill is restructured. Both democratic and republican senators were cited in their support of this movement. The new plastic technology is still very expensive and difficult to obtain.
Reaction:
I think that the fact that both parties in congress are so quick to agree on this, relates how much of a no-brainer it would be to ban these firearms. It seems like an awful shooting or terrorist attack just waiting to happen, and is a very necessary precaution to take. No matter what your opinion on gun laws are, I believe that it is undisputable that these firearms are even necessary to exist, at least on the domestic level. I would think that most representatives would also be in favor of the ban, since a politicians image would be virtually destroyed if an unfortunate shooting would happen because of their vote.
Connection:
This article can be connected to our in class topics because senators and house members, no matter their party affiliation, are mostly supportive of banning the guns. This is probably because it is a very popular standpoint among independent voters, therefore going against those voters would sharply decrease a representative's chances of reelection. So basically this article indirectly connects to party affiliation as well as a display of how incumbency benefits politicians in reelection campaigns.
Weaver Social Welfare #1
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/poverty-in-america-is-mainstream/?_r=0
Summary: The title of the article is 'Poverty in America Is Mainstream'. It focuses on how poverty is underestimated in our country. Then it goes into surprising statistics. It states that at nearly 40% of Americans between 25-60 will experience at least one year below the official line of poverty, which is $23,492 for a family of four. Also, that 54% of Americans will spend a year in poverty or near poverty. Even more frightening, four out five Americans will encounter welfare use, unemployment, and near poverty at least one point in their life. And half of all children, at some point in their childhood, will live in a house where they rely on food stamps for a period of time. The article then makes an intriguing statement, "the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when."
Reaction: This really puts poverty in perspective to me. I never would have believed those statistics if someone came up to me and said that over half of Americans will experience near poverty. Also, the title intrigues me. The word 'mainstream' is used often in society, but to describe music or style. Like the whole hipster thing, not wanting to be 'mainstream'. But I don't think I can mentally compare poverty to the top hits on iTunes or pumpkin spice lattes. It's too scary for me to comprehend. Mainly because the stereotypes of linking poverty to homelessness. Like the people begging off highway exits. Or the crazy addicts who will use donation money to feed their addiction and not feed themselves or families. Sure, being in poverty you are sometimes making 20,000 a year, but it still has a negative connotation. Also saying not if we will experience poverty, but when we will? That's definitely makes me worried about my future.
Connection: This can be related to the high unemployment rates at this time. Since four out of five will encounter welfare use, unemployment, and near poverty, it can be assumed that the unemployment is the main root of these problems. If they had a job, there would be a less likely chance that they would need welfare or be in poverty.
Summary: The title of the article is 'Poverty in America Is Mainstream'. It focuses on how poverty is underestimated in our country. Then it goes into surprising statistics. It states that at nearly 40% of Americans between 25-60 will experience at least one year below the official line of poverty, which is $23,492 for a family of four. Also, that 54% of Americans will spend a year in poverty or near poverty. Even more frightening, four out five Americans will encounter welfare use, unemployment, and near poverty at least one point in their life. And half of all children, at some point in their childhood, will live in a house where they rely on food stamps for a period of time. The article then makes an intriguing statement, "the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when."
Reaction: This really puts poverty in perspective to me. I never would have believed those statistics if someone came up to me and said that over half of Americans will experience near poverty. Also, the title intrigues me. The word 'mainstream' is used often in society, but to describe music or style. Like the whole hipster thing, not wanting to be 'mainstream'. But I don't think I can mentally compare poverty to the top hits on iTunes or pumpkin spice lattes. It's too scary for me to comprehend. Mainly because the stereotypes of linking poverty to homelessness. Like the people begging off highway exits. Or the crazy addicts who will use donation money to feed their addiction and not feed themselves or families. Sure, being in poverty you are sometimes making 20,000 a year, but it still has a negative connotation. Also saying not if we will experience poverty, but when we will? That's definitely makes me worried about my future.
Connection: This can be related to the high unemployment rates at this time. Since four out of five will encounter welfare use, unemployment, and near poverty, it can be assumed that the unemployment is the main root of these problems. If they had a job, there would be a less likely chance that they would need welfare or be in poverty.
Aimee Plante - Economics
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21589870-capitalists-not-just-greens-are-now-questioning-how-significant-benefits-shale-gas-and
Here is an explanation of fracking for those who don't know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uti2niW2BRA
SUMMARY: Since our investment in North American shale fracking, America has become one of the leading oil and gas producers in the world. The US is predicted to surpass both Russia and Saudi Arabia this year. Since 2005, America's gas output has increased by one-third and, since 2008, our oil production has boosted 30%; however, despite these advancements, capitalists have questioned the benefits to fracking in America. Companies such as Shell have invested billions of dollars into the tapping of unconventional reserves, but have not made enough profit for the shale beds to be pursued any further. Since the cost of fracking is so extravagant, the profit made through the investment only makes a small boost in our nation's economy which leads us to question whether the exploitation of fracking is a truly necessary economic tool.
REACTION: I never thought that fracking was a good idea, even before the economists began to question it. I am glad to hear that big businesses are finding the cost inefficient since environmentalists have been warning of the dangers and, while the owners of oil producing companies are not changing their mind for those reasons, they are at least persuaded to end it somehow. It is unfortunate that it takes a lack of profit to make a difference, but I suppose that the ends justify the means in this case. This may sound idealist, but it would be great if America took all the money used in investments such as fracking and converted it to money used for solar and wind energy. But, of course, it is never that simple.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I also appreciated the article's subtle humor: "...whether the exploitable reserves of unconventional oil and gas are as big as they are fracked up to be."
CONNECTION: This issue connects to AP Government in that it addresses the power of money in making decisions through interest groups. The environmental interest groups have been warning of the long-term dangers of fracking and other general oil tapping, but they do not have the money to truly influence those who base their decisions on profit. Now that oil companies are realizing that fracking is no longer a successful investment, however, the big-oil interest groups -- with a lot of money -- will most likely weaken (or, hopefully, stop) their push for unconventional tapping and begin to pursue other issues. Money is ultimately the deciding factor.
Josh Malik National Security Post 5
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/19/top-deputy-defends-nsa-spying-programs/
Summary- Deputy Director John C. Inglis addressed the media Tuesday, November 19, during a rare public appearance. He wanted to clear up all the dispute that has been occurring recently between the NSA (National Security Agency) and the American opinion. Due to the Edward Snowden incident which occurred in this past summer, Americans and citizens across the globe are worried about their personal privacy. Edward Snowden was a former NSA agent who is now living in Russia. She leaked to the public about how the NSA can tap into, record, and research communication activity on nearly anybody's phone in the world. This outraged and concerned millions of people and caused much distrust in the NSA. during this recent public appearance, John Inglis argued that the NSA is much more concerned with each Americans civil liberties than many of them may think. The NSA has over 300 workers involved in their cooperation to ensure that the organization doesn't conflict with any constitutional rights. Also, Mr. Inglis argues that countless government officials well known to many Americans have seen and are over watching the actions of the NSA. The main reason for the access to phones around the world is to get an edge up on terrorism, which helps extremely and has saved countless lives.
Reaction- I do not see why so many people are so concerned that the government has the access to phones around the world. Unless you are doing something illegal then there is really no reason for anybody to be concerned. They are doing this so that we are safe. They are trying to prevent another incident such as 9/11. Who knows what kind of terrorist attacks may have taken place if the NSA hadn't gotten a leg up on terrorists communications and actions. It's not like they are posting your text messages on the front page of the paper. That would not be constitutionally allowed anyway.
Connection- I found it amusing how Mr. Inglis said that one of the reasons he decided to make a public appearance was because he wanted to bring more information and attempt to settle the dispute of the "battle of soundbites". The media has just been getting bits and pieces of what really is happening and are using that to inform Americans of what is happening. Just in class last week, we discussed how soundbites are used and can be fatal to politicians and organizations.
Summary- Deputy Director John C. Inglis addressed the media Tuesday, November 19, during a rare public appearance. He wanted to clear up all the dispute that has been occurring recently between the NSA (National Security Agency) and the American opinion. Due to the Edward Snowden incident which occurred in this past summer, Americans and citizens across the globe are worried about their personal privacy. Edward Snowden was a former NSA agent who is now living in Russia. She leaked to the public about how the NSA can tap into, record, and research communication activity on nearly anybody's phone in the world. This outraged and concerned millions of people and caused much distrust in the NSA. during this recent public appearance, John Inglis argued that the NSA is much more concerned with each Americans civil liberties than many of them may think. The NSA has over 300 workers involved in their cooperation to ensure that the organization doesn't conflict with any constitutional rights. Also, Mr. Inglis argues that countless government officials well known to many Americans have seen and are over watching the actions of the NSA. The main reason for the access to phones around the world is to get an edge up on terrorism, which helps extremely and has saved countless lives.
Reaction- I do not see why so many people are so concerned that the government has the access to phones around the world. Unless you are doing something illegal then there is really no reason for anybody to be concerned. They are doing this so that we are safe. They are trying to prevent another incident such as 9/11. Who knows what kind of terrorist attacks may have taken place if the NSA hadn't gotten a leg up on terrorists communications and actions. It's not like they are posting your text messages on the front page of the paper. That would not be constitutionally allowed anyway.
Connection- I found it amusing how Mr. Inglis said that one of the reasons he decided to make a public appearance was because he wanted to bring more information and attempt to settle the dispute of the "battle of soundbites". The media has just been getting bits and pieces of what really is happening and are using that to inform Americans of what is happening. Just in class last week, we discussed how soundbites are used and can be fatal to politicians and organizations.
Social Welfare #1 Bailey Schmidt
http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2013-10-21-85525.113122-Prisoners-still-receiving-social-welfare-benefits-audit-finds.html
Summary:
5 counties in New York recently audited jails within the five counties and found a significant amount of prisoners receiving welfare benefits. A total of $236,404 was given to these prisoners in various forms of welfare. The cause of this mishap is somewhat unknown but is most likely the Department of Social Services fault because forms filed by the correctional centers are usually up to date.
Connection:
This somewhat parallels how the PACs spend money. PACs receive money from interest groups, but the money is given out to how the PACs want to give it out and who needs it most.
Reaction:
Unfortunately here we see another flaw in the welfare system. I think people need to do there job and make sure they are doing it correctly. I guess this relates to the free rider problem we learned about in class because people who don't do their job correctly, still get paid. If we want to reform welfare, I think we should start with reforming who gets welfare and who doesn't and make sure that the right people are receiving it.
Summary:
5 counties in New York recently audited jails within the five counties and found a significant amount of prisoners receiving welfare benefits. A total of $236,404 was given to these prisoners in various forms of welfare. The cause of this mishap is somewhat unknown but is most likely the Department of Social Services fault because forms filed by the correctional centers are usually up to date.
Connection:
This somewhat parallels how the PACs spend money. PACs receive money from interest groups, but the money is given out to how the PACs want to give it out and who needs it most.
Reaction:
Unfortunately here we see another flaw in the welfare system. I think people need to do there job and make sure they are doing it correctly. I guess this relates to the free rider problem we learned about in class because people who don't do their job correctly, still get paid. If we want to reform welfare, I think we should start with reforming who gets welfare and who doesn't and make sure that the right people are receiving it.
Vincent Social Welfare #1
Summary: This article talks about the devastating effects of cutting the funding for food stamps. There are 47,000 Americans who currently depend on food stamps, and nearly two thirds of those recipients are children, elderly or disabled. The Democratic Senate version of the farm bill would cut food stamps by $4 billion over the next 10 years. Contrastingly, the Republican House of Representatives farm bill would cut food stamps by $40 billion over the next 10 years. Decreasing the amount of food stamps going out would increase malnutrition in many in utero and children, which has lasting consequences. Studies show that malnutrition during these critical years creates health problems that lead to diabetes, obesity and heart disease, as well as educational difficulties and brain development issues.
Connection: A portion of this article talks about the farm bills created by the Republican House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate. Because the Senate has a Democratic majority, the farm bill that they create gives much more money to funding for food stamps than the bill created by the House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority. One large reason for this is because minorities and people receiving a low income are much more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate. To keep their support, Democrats put forth policies that reflect the wants and needs of minorities and people living below the poverty line.
Reaction: I’m appalled that our government can look at facts like these and support cutting spending for food stamps. It make me incredibly angry that they have access to studies that show results of physical, social, and educational deficiencies caused by malnutrition at a young age and ignore them. I think that many people are uninformed about this issue when it comes to who is receiving this aid. Food stamps aren’t given to freeloaders who rely on the government because they’re too lazy to get a job. They’re given to children, elderly and disabled, the ones who cannot work and do not have any other options.
Environment #1- Morgan Estok
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/energy-dept-is-told-to-stop-collecting-fee-for-nuclear-waste-disposal.html?ref=earth&_r=0
Summary: This article is about a federal appeals court ruling that the Energy Department must stop the collection of fees from consumers, for the proper disposal of nuclear waste. The department has been collecting about $750 million dollars, since a law that was established in the 1980's, required consumers who use electricity from reactors to pay a fee. That money was said to be put towards a program that would construct a depository site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, however, when Obama took office, he stopped construction on the site. So now, consumers are paying a fee on a program that has since been dismantled and is only a hypothetical option. The department has spent $7 billion and has $30 billion saved up in this fund for something that doesn't even exist. Congress is at a deadlock about what to do because Republicans want Obama to follow the laws from 1980 and continue work on the depository, while a Nevada Democrat has blocked funding. There is no assurance that Yucca will be suitable for nuclear waste and, in the meantime, that waste is accumulating at reactor sites. Because of this, the department hopes to have a depository site open by 2048, even though it was supposed to be ready for nuclear waste in 1998.
Reaction: I find this article extremely surprising and if I were a consumer, I would be really upset about it. These people have been paying an extra fee on their energy bills for a nuclear waste depository that has now been dismantled. What's even worse, is that the Energy Department is just letting this money pile up (along with the homeless nuclear waste). Also, it's crazy that Congress seriously can't even figure this one out! The department has a massive amount of money, so the answer is simple, make sure it doesn't go to waste and use it for something useful. I'm also really glad that Obama actually made good on a campaign promise that he had by stopping the construction. It's sad that we usually only see what promises he's not upheld versus seeing what promises he has.
Connection: This can be connected with disagreeing parties because a solution to this depository isn't being made because of partisan conflicts. Republicans want the construction to return, while some Democratic leaders are stopping funding, just as Obama did when he was elected. This can also possibly be connected to interest groups. I'm sure there was an interest group somewhere that requested Obama promise to stop construction on this depository, whether it be an environmental group or an energy group. It shows that he made this promise during campaigning and had implemented just as people wanted. It proves that maybe if you support a candidate, your issues will be addressed.
Summary: This article is about a federal appeals court ruling that the Energy Department must stop the collection of fees from consumers, for the proper disposal of nuclear waste. The department has been collecting about $750 million dollars, since a law that was established in the 1980's, required consumers who use electricity from reactors to pay a fee. That money was said to be put towards a program that would construct a depository site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, however, when Obama took office, he stopped construction on the site. So now, consumers are paying a fee on a program that has since been dismantled and is only a hypothetical option. The department has spent $7 billion and has $30 billion saved up in this fund for something that doesn't even exist. Congress is at a deadlock about what to do because Republicans want Obama to follow the laws from 1980 and continue work on the depository, while a Nevada Democrat has blocked funding. There is no assurance that Yucca will be suitable for nuclear waste and, in the meantime, that waste is accumulating at reactor sites. Because of this, the department hopes to have a depository site open by 2048, even though it was supposed to be ready for nuclear waste in 1998.
Reaction: I find this article extremely surprising and if I were a consumer, I would be really upset about it. These people have been paying an extra fee on their energy bills for a nuclear waste depository that has now been dismantled. What's even worse, is that the Energy Department is just letting this money pile up (along with the homeless nuclear waste). Also, it's crazy that Congress seriously can't even figure this one out! The department has a massive amount of money, so the answer is simple, make sure it doesn't go to waste and use it for something useful. I'm also really glad that Obama actually made good on a campaign promise that he had by stopping the construction. It's sad that we usually only see what promises he's not upheld versus seeing what promises he has.
Connection: This can be connected with disagreeing parties because a solution to this depository isn't being made because of partisan conflicts. Republicans want the construction to return, while some Democratic leaders are stopping funding, just as Obama did when he was elected. This can also possibly be connected to interest groups. I'm sure there was an interest group somewhere that requested Obama promise to stop construction on this depository, whether it be an environmental group or an energy group. It shows that he made this promise during campaigning and had implemented just as people wanted. It proves that maybe if you support a candidate, your issues will be addressed.
Environment #1 Matt Cassady
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/10/local/la-me-desal-huntington-20131111
Summary: This article is mainly about seawater desalination that happened on the beach of Huntington California. Which is a process of removing salt and other materials from saline water.
They do this to make salt water drinkable to humans. This avoids harm by constructing intakes called infiltration plants around the world and prohibitively expensive for operations like Huntington beach. There are companies trying to avoid this by using smaller desalination plants. The excavation of more then 60 acres of seabed as well as the installation of beach pumping equipment would use more energy than an open ocean intake.
Reaction: My reaction to this is it's both good and bad. This is good because with desalination happening then the water we drink in our homes is cleaner and healthier. Which is good because we don't want to get sick. This is bad though because of all the energy it's taking up which if this is true then everything will die off because there wont be any energy left.
Connection: The connection of this article is that the environment is a huge thing. If the party in office is not doing a good job with keeping our environment a safe place do you really think that the American people will re-elect that party? Probably not which is why our environment is an important subject in the government.
Summary: This article is mainly about seawater desalination that happened on the beach of Huntington California. Which is a process of removing salt and other materials from saline water.
They do this to make salt water drinkable to humans. This avoids harm by constructing intakes called infiltration plants around the world and prohibitively expensive for operations like Huntington beach. There are companies trying to avoid this by using smaller desalination plants. The excavation of more then 60 acres of seabed as well as the installation of beach pumping equipment would use more energy than an open ocean intake.
Reaction: My reaction to this is it's both good and bad. This is good because with desalination happening then the water we drink in our homes is cleaner and healthier. Which is good because we don't want to get sick. This is bad though because of all the energy it's taking up which if this is true then everything will die off because there wont be any energy left.
Connection: The connection of this article is that the environment is a huge thing. If the party in office is not doing a good job with keeping our environment a safe place do you really think that the American people will re-elect that party? Probably not which is why our environment is an important subject in the government.
Katherine Baer - Environement 1
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131119-melissa-bachman-lion-hunt-photo-conservation-animals/
Reaction: I think this entire article and situation is controversial. I can understand why some people were bothered by Bachman's twitter post. It is definitely an alarming sight to see a lion dead next to it's hunter, especially for those of us that live in developed countries such as the United States. However, I don't think it is fair for Bachman to be punished because controlled lion hunting is legal in South Africa. If so many South African's have a problem with controlled lion hunting, that should be taken up with the government. I think it is extremely ironic that organizations that support the conservation of lions promote lion hunts to raise funds. I think there could be a different way to raise money for anti poaching organizations.
Connection: In the last unit, we talked about how the media affected government and policy making. In this case, social media sparked interest on this issue. When Bachman posted the picture of she and the lion on twitter, people started responding right away. The issue of controlled lion hunting was not only being argued about on social media, but included in other forms of media such as online articles like the one I found. The more media attention the topic receives, the more potential it has to be a topic on South Africa's policy agenda. Also, this situation may prompt the US to step in and advise South Africa on how to go about solving the issue. This could allow for better foreign relations between the two countries, which is always a good thing in today's society.
Kline - National Security
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/11/16/c6236ac2-4e1f-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
Summary: The US and Afghanistan have drafted a treaty to set the terms of the US continued presence within Afghan borders. The US will retain 5000 to 10000 troops within Afghanistan on the condition that they be used to oversee the continued development of democracy in Afghanistan. The treaty lasts indefinitely with the provision that us not use Afghanistan as a staging point for attack against any other nations.
Reaction: It seems as if the US intentionally left very week provisions throughout the treaty on purpose. The use of drones based in Afghan territory is not explicitly denied. And the Afghans failed to mention to what degree of support the US is required to give, with the reason that use would need to have the Senate ratify the treaty to provide any substantial help, making it seem rather useless to both parties. Terror groups have already responded by detonating a car bomb in Kabul killing six, bringing into question the early effectiveness of the treaty.
Connection: This relates to our government in that order to provide quality, meaningful help to the Afghans the senate would need to ratify the treaty, an event deemed unlikely as the senate weary to make any more significant commitments in the middle east. The unwillingness to make this decision could be that it is likely to be unpopular with voters thus hurting the incumbents chances of reelection, linking this to the electoral process aswell
Summary: The US and Afghanistan have drafted a treaty to set the terms of the US continued presence within Afghan borders. The US will retain 5000 to 10000 troops within Afghanistan on the condition that they be used to oversee the continued development of democracy in Afghanistan. The treaty lasts indefinitely with the provision that us not use Afghanistan as a staging point for attack against any other nations.
Reaction: It seems as if the US intentionally left very week provisions throughout the treaty on purpose. The use of drones based in Afghan territory is not explicitly denied. And the Afghans failed to mention to what degree of support the US is required to give, with the reason that use would need to have the Senate ratify the treaty to provide any substantial help, making it seem rather useless to both parties. Terror groups have already responded by detonating a car bomb in Kabul killing six, bringing into question the early effectiveness of the treaty.
Connection: This relates to our government in that order to provide quality, meaningful help to the Afghans the senate would need to ratify the treaty, an event deemed unlikely as the senate weary to make any more significant commitments in the middle east. The unwillingness to make this decision could be that it is likely to be unpopular with voters thus hurting the incumbents chances of reelection, linking this to the electoral process aswell
Aaron L National Sec. #5
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-sandry/solar-energy-could-be-ame_b_4277397.html?utm_hp_ref=green
Summary: Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, says that cyber attacks will be the number one threat to the United States. The USA usage of energy may leave us vulnerable to an attack on our energy infrastructure. A big thing is that the Department of Defense consumes the largest amount of energy in the world. We spend a lot of money on electricity and oil and we get these overseas and ship it to our military who are over seas. Along with fuel, climate change poses a large security threat to us. In the past decade, many large companies use automating tasks which help reduce the cost while still increasing efficiency, but having this may put us at risk for cyber attacks because the energy systems we use are accessible through computer networks. By having this type of energy system, we can be at risk of terrorist groups who have the ability to hack our energy systems which could result in part of the energy grid to shut down. Currently, our national grid is estimated around $1 trillion. The National Academy of Sciences predict that if a cyber attack were to happen to our energy grid, they could knock out the power of certain regions for months. But what could be even more detrimental, is that the D.O.D. uses the most energy in the world, and what would happen if they lost power? Scientist believe that using solar energy could be a solution to the cyber security threat. This is because it is much more difficult to attack millions of solar installation, rather than target a few large energy transmission centers. Overall, this article explains why our current energy consumption could be a threat to our national security, and using alternative energy like solar panels may reduce the chances of cyber attacks. The bright side is that the D.O.D. has placed enough solar energy to power over 22,000 American homes.
Reaction: I always thought it is important to use alternative energy, especially for our environment. But now that I heard that the energy systems we us now are more prone to get hacked, I think its even more important to use alternative energy. It surprises me that our Department of Defense uses the most energy, which could one day turn on us. If someone successfully hacked our energy systems, this would harm a large majority of our nation. It is good though that we are starting to use more alternative sources of energy.
Connection: This relates to us because it is our government's job to protect the people. If we take the proper precautions with our usage of energy, we will be safer. But there is a lot of work to do to help make this a safer country as well as more energy efficient. By using alternative energy, we become less likely to be victims of hacking, as well as helping our environment.
Summary: Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, says that cyber attacks will be the number one threat to the United States. The USA usage of energy may leave us vulnerable to an attack on our energy infrastructure. A big thing is that the Department of Defense consumes the largest amount of energy in the world. We spend a lot of money on electricity and oil and we get these overseas and ship it to our military who are over seas. Along with fuel, climate change poses a large security threat to us. In the past decade, many large companies use automating tasks which help reduce the cost while still increasing efficiency, but having this may put us at risk for cyber attacks because the energy systems we use are accessible through computer networks. By having this type of energy system, we can be at risk of terrorist groups who have the ability to hack our energy systems which could result in part of the energy grid to shut down. Currently, our national grid is estimated around $1 trillion. The National Academy of Sciences predict that if a cyber attack were to happen to our energy grid, they could knock out the power of certain regions for months. But what could be even more detrimental, is that the D.O.D. uses the most energy in the world, and what would happen if they lost power? Scientist believe that using solar energy could be a solution to the cyber security threat. This is because it is much more difficult to attack millions of solar installation, rather than target a few large energy transmission centers. Overall, this article explains why our current energy consumption could be a threat to our national security, and using alternative energy like solar panels may reduce the chances of cyber attacks. The bright side is that the D.O.D. has placed enough solar energy to power over 22,000 American homes.
Reaction: I always thought it is important to use alternative energy, especially for our environment. But now that I heard that the energy systems we us now are more prone to get hacked, I think its even more important to use alternative energy. It surprises me that our Department of Defense uses the most energy, which could one day turn on us. If someone successfully hacked our energy systems, this would harm a large majority of our nation. It is good though that we are starting to use more alternative sources of energy.
Connection: This relates to us because it is our government's job to protect the people. If we take the proper precautions with our usage of energy, we will be safer. But there is a lot of work to do to help make this a safer country as well as more energy efficient. By using alternative energy, we become less likely to be victims of hacking, as well as helping our environment.
Carter Himmelman National security 1
White House Official on National Security Is Fired After Twitter Posts Are Unmasked
Summary: Jofi Joseph a worker at the white was fired. He worked on the nations most serious business, he worked with arms proliferation. During the day he was one of he best worker, but after work he became @NatSecWonk. On twitter he tweeted things that he was not suppose to say. One thing he said was, "I'm abrasive and I bring the snark." On Wednesday, white house officials said that he was fired. They fired him for all the things he said on twitter. He would tweet things that would knock his fellow workers, public figures and reporters. After Joseph was fired he went through his twitter and deleted some of his tweets. One of his fellow workers he knocked on was Hillary Clinton.
Reaction: My reaction to this article is that this guy is very stupid. He is stupid because he is calling people out on twitter where people can see it. Also since he is a very important person, he should not be saying these things. I am glad that he was fired. But this makes me think who else the government is looking at on twitter.
Connection: I think that this connects to the class because of the 1st amendment. In the 1st amendment you have the freedom of speech. Which Jofi Joseph is using his rights to do so. Even though he isn't saying the best things. So I think that this is violating his rights.
Maya D- Environment 1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angel-hsu/does-the-environment-need_b_3568529.html
Summary- Big Data is an idea that environmentalists want to use in their approach towards changing America. The idea if big data is largely conceptual but it is basically the large data base that a company or group uses to their advantage. Things like twitter are an example of big data and it is very clear the environment cannot turn to social media to advocate for themselves. They believe that by expanding their groups data there will be a larger wealth of knowledge that will allow for more environmental changes to be made. The issue is that with the limited funds any environmental organization has the ability to get a grant from the government for the data is virtually impossible. The true problem is the way the government overlooks environmental protection and dismisses anything that is brought to them until a later time when we are running out of time to change.
Reaction- I agree with this article for the most part. The protection and preservation of the environment is important and it is a good thing that these organizations are trying so hard to expand their reach. The larger the data a group has the faster it's ability to continue solving problems that we've been facing for a long time. I also disagree with this article because it makes the issues that we are facing seem incredibly urgent. While the problems are important i do not believe that they require as much immediate attention as the article dramatized them to need.
Connection- This connects to our discussion of groups in government. The interest group here would be Environment Performance Index and the Big Data Forum. Both of these groups have a common interest that they are pushing to get realized by the government and possibly get put on policy agenda. They are currently using litigation by taking what they need from the government to court and hoping for a different outcome in their favor.
Summary- Big Data is an idea that environmentalists want to use in their approach towards changing America. The idea if big data is largely conceptual but it is basically the large data base that a company or group uses to their advantage. Things like twitter are an example of big data and it is very clear the environment cannot turn to social media to advocate for themselves. They believe that by expanding their groups data there will be a larger wealth of knowledge that will allow for more environmental changes to be made. The issue is that with the limited funds any environmental organization has the ability to get a grant from the government for the data is virtually impossible. The true problem is the way the government overlooks environmental protection and dismisses anything that is brought to them until a later time when we are running out of time to change.
Reaction- I agree with this article for the most part. The protection and preservation of the environment is important and it is a good thing that these organizations are trying so hard to expand their reach. The larger the data a group has the faster it's ability to continue solving problems that we've been facing for a long time. I also disagree with this article because it makes the issues that we are facing seem incredibly urgent. While the problems are important i do not believe that they require as much immediate attention as the article dramatized them to need.
Connection- This connects to our discussion of groups in government. The interest group here would be Environment Performance Index and the Big Data Forum. Both of these groups have a common interest that they are pushing to get realized by the government and possibly get put on policy agenda. They are currently using litigation by taking what they need from the government to court and hoping for a different outcome in their favor.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Alexis Tansey - Social Welfare #5
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/chicago_news&id=9328448
Summary: Illinois' child welfare system needs a lot of work. The number of children dying from abuse and neglect is increasing. Some of those cases are even under the radar of case workers. There needs to be better communication between the police and case workers. Denise Kane, inspector general for the Department of Children and Family Services says, "child-welfare workers should work more evening shifts so they can have more interaction with working families, many of whom aren't home until after 5 p.m." The Chicago Police Department and the Department of Children and Family Services still do not have a liaison so that they can work together. This is something they are working on. There was a study that showed that there were 111 child deaths state wide caused by abuse or neglect during a 1 year period. DCFS Director Richard Calica worked to reduce caseloads by eliminating management jobs and converting them to investigator positions. This reduced the number of cases one worker handles from 25 to about 9. The DCFS is making lots of changes to prevent deaths of children and make their program a lot better.
Reaction: It surprises me that there were so many deaths, especially for cases with investigators assigned to it. I think that the DCFS definitely needs to make changes because even one death or injury of a child is too many. I'm happy to hear that the deaths of children will be prevented from the changes being made. I hope that the Police Department works more closely with the DCFS so that there will be even more people working to keep these children safe.
Connection: Social Welfare is an important part of government of all levels. This article deals with the Illinois state government. In class, we studied the differences and similarities between state, local, and federal government. The Illinois state government needs to take measures to fix the DCFS, in this situation the federal government would not deal with it.
Summary: Illinois' child welfare system needs a lot of work. The number of children dying from abuse and neglect is increasing. Some of those cases are even under the radar of case workers. There needs to be better communication between the police and case workers. Denise Kane, inspector general for the Department of Children and Family Services says, "child-welfare workers should work more evening shifts so they can have more interaction with working families, many of whom aren't home until after 5 p.m." The Chicago Police Department and the Department of Children and Family Services still do not have a liaison so that they can work together. This is something they are working on. There was a study that showed that there were 111 child deaths state wide caused by abuse or neglect during a 1 year period. DCFS Director Richard Calica worked to reduce caseloads by eliminating management jobs and converting them to investigator positions. This reduced the number of cases one worker handles from 25 to about 9. The DCFS is making lots of changes to prevent deaths of children and make their program a lot better.
Reaction: It surprises me that there were so many deaths, especially for cases with investigators assigned to it. I think that the DCFS definitely needs to make changes because even one death or injury of a child is too many. I'm happy to hear that the deaths of children will be prevented from the changes being made. I hope that the Police Department works more closely with the DCFS so that there will be even more people working to keep these children safe.
Connection: Social Welfare is an important part of government of all levels. This article deals with the Illinois state government. In class, we studied the differences and similarities between state, local, and federal government. The Illinois state government needs to take measures to fix the DCFS, in this situation the federal government would not deal with it.
National Security Post #1 Kinyon
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2013/1117/Key-moments-in-NSA-spy-saga
SUMMARY:
This article gives a timeline on the NSA spying scandal. The NSA collected citizens phone and email records under the PRISM program. Some have stated that the NSA has violated civil liberties and the 4th amendment. Others say that the NSA data collection is crucial to National Security and fighting terrorism. The article details how Edward Snowden leaked data about the NSA and then fled to Russia. The NSA has targeted various networks to gain users personal information and data. The NSA has also collected the data of foreign nations at the embassies in Washington, and it has also collected the data of major technological companies, such as Yahoo and Google. Overall, the article provides a brief timeline of NSA activity over the past few months.
REACTION:
The media's coverage of the NSA has really angered me. It seems that the fact that personal data is being collected on people is a news event that would gain a lot of attention. Therefore, the media focuses mostly on the bulk metadata collection by the NSA under the PRISM program. People read these articles and know quite little about the NSA. The view they have of the NSA often comes solely off of their perception of the NSA's PRISM program. However, the NSA operates a variety of other programs, many of which are less intrusive than PRISM. Most people, however, only focus on the PRISM program of the NSA and the collection of phone and email records, rather than these other programs. They formulate an opinion of the NSA without having full knowledge of the NSA. People proclaim to be against the NSA, even though they really are against just one of their programs. While I am willing to concede that the PRISM program has, on balance, had few benefits, I still have a positive perception of the NSA. This comes from the fact that the NSA operates the Information Assurance Program (IA). Cybersecurity is a very big concern for a lot of people today. Some say the NSA weakens encryption and cybersecurity by opening up backdoors that can be exploited. However, the IA program of the NSA is crucial for national security. It gives cryptographic safeguards for important data, including information about nuclear command and control systems. It has helped secure financial institutions and corporations from cyberattacks as well. The IA program certainly has many benefits, but few people know about. This is all due to the media's coverage of the NSA. It is easier for the public to understand that the NSA has accessed their personal data than to understand how the NSA maintains cybersecurity through the IA program. The public would have more of a reaction to the story about the collection of their phone and email records. Therefore, the media chooses to cover the story about PRISM, and not cover the stories about the IA. Overall, I am a bit angry about the media coverage of the IA program.
CONNECTION:
This connects to what we are learning about with interest groups. There are many groups that are against the NSA collection of phone and email records. ACLU is among these groups. These groups have had a major influence on some politicians, and there is a bill to reform the bulk metadata collection. These interest groups use public sentiment as an effective strategy to influence policy. Because of these interests groups in opposition to the NSA's bulk metadata collection, politicians are feeling pressure to pass a bill to reform the NSA.
SUMMARY:
This article gives a timeline on the NSA spying scandal. The NSA collected citizens phone and email records under the PRISM program. Some have stated that the NSA has violated civil liberties and the 4th amendment. Others say that the NSA data collection is crucial to National Security and fighting terrorism. The article details how Edward Snowden leaked data about the NSA and then fled to Russia. The NSA has targeted various networks to gain users personal information and data. The NSA has also collected the data of foreign nations at the embassies in Washington, and it has also collected the data of major technological companies, such as Yahoo and Google. Overall, the article provides a brief timeline of NSA activity over the past few months.
REACTION:
The media's coverage of the NSA has really angered me. It seems that the fact that personal data is being collected on people is a news event that would gain a lot of attention. Therefore, the media focuses mostly on the bulk metadata collection by the NSA under the PRISM program. People read these articles and know quite little about the NSA. The view they have of the NSA often comes solely off of their perception of the NSA's PRISM program. However, the NSA operates a variety of other programs, many of which are less intrusive than PRISM. Most people, however, only focus on the PRISM program of the NSA and the collection of phone and email records, rather than these other programs. They formulate an opinion of the NSA without having full knowledge of the NSA. People proclaim to be against the NSA, even though they really are against just one of their programs. While I am willing to concede that the PRISM program has, on balance, had few benefits, I still have a positive perception of the NSA. This comes from the fact that the NSA operates the Information Assurance Program (IA). Cybersecurity is a very big concern for a lot of people today. Some say the NSA weakens encryption and cybersecurity by opening up backdoors that can be exploited. However, the IA program of the NSA is crucial for national security. It gives cryptographic safeguards for important data, including information about nuclear command and control systems. It has helped secure financial institutions and corporations from cyberattacks as well. The IA program certainly has many benefits, but few people know about. This is all due to the media's coverage of the NSA. It is easier for the public to understand that the NSA has accessed their personal data than to understand how the NSA maintains cybersecurity through the IA program. The public would have more of a reaction to the story about the collection of their phone and email records. Therefore, the media chooses to cover the story about PRISM, and not cover the stories about the IA. Overall, I am a bit angry about the media coverage of the IA program.
CONNECTION:
This connects to what we are learning about with interest groups. There are many groups that are against the NSA collection of phone and email records. ACLU is among these groups. These groups have had a major influence on some politicians, and there is a bill to reform the bulk metadata collection. These interest groups use public sentiment as an effective strategy to influence policy. Because of these interests groups in opposition to the NSA's bulk metadata collection, politicians are feeling pressure to pass a bill to reform the NSA.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Fredy Stroker Economy #4
Economy #4
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/08/distorted-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rate-up-to-73-percent
Summery: With the government shutdown not ending too long ago, much of the data that the U.S. is releasing can be inaccurate. Because of the timing of the shutdown, reports are being distorted. The labor department counted that about 204,000 new jobs had been added in the U.S. which is about twice as many as consensus estimates. The government job report also released that the unemployment rate is up to 7.3%. The shutdown occurred from October 1 thought the 16 and the surveys conducted on the 12th. This means that both of the data results were affected. An example of this is government workers who where not going to work marked their house surveys as unemployed even though they would eventually go back to work. The number of people on temporary layoff also jumped from 1.1 million to 1.5 million. The 204,000 new jobs may mean something good for the economy, but it's too hard to tell because the data is inaccurate because of the government shutdown. Because of the shutdown, surveys will be affected for many months.
Reaction: This article was kind of confusing to me. From past articles I've read about the shutdown, it caused many people to lose their jobs but I don't understand how there could be more jobs than usual. I believe that the new jobs that are springing up are the jobs that people lost during the shutdown and that are now trying to hire again. I also don't understand why government workers would mark themselves as unemployed. They still had a job that they were eventually going to go back to. The temporary layoff right skyrocketing does not surprise me though, because many government workers could not work during the shutdown.
Connection: This article relates to the polling surveys we learned about in the last unit. Sometimes, people in polls don't always have the right representation and the polls results can be somewhat inaccurate. This relates to this article. The government shutdown caused peoples surveys to be different than normal because people did not have a job for the time during the shutdown the main connection between the two is that it shows that polls and surveys may not show the exactly correct data or information.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/08/distorted-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-rate-up-to-73-percent
Summery: With the government shutdown not ending too long ago, much of the data that the U.S. is releasing can be inaccurate. Because of the timing of the shutdown, reports are being distorted. The labor department counted that about 204,000 new jobs had been added in the U.S. which is about twice as many as consensus estimates. The government job report also released that the unemployment rate is up to 7.3%. The shutdown occurred from October 1 thought the 16 and the surveys conducted on the 12th. This means that both of the data results were affected. An example of this is government workers who where not going to work marked their house surveys as unemployed even though they would eventually go back to work. The number of people on temporary layoff also jumped from 1.1 million to 1.5 million. The 204,000 new jobs may mean something good for the economy, but it's too hard to tell because the data is inaccurate because of the government shutdown. Because of the shutdown, surveys will be affected for many months.
Reaction: This article was kind of confusing to me. From past articles I've read about the shutdown, it caused many people to lose their jobs but I don't understand how there could be more jobs than usual. I believe that the new jobs that are springing up are the jobs that people lost during the shutdown and that are now trying to hire again. I also don't understand why government workers would mark themselves as unemployed. They still had a job that they were eventually going to go back to. The temporary layoff right skyrocketing does not surprise me though, because many government workers could not work during the shutdown.
Connection: This article relates to the polling surveys we learned about in the last unit. Sometimes, people in polls don't always have the right representation and the polls results can be somewhat inaccurate. This relates to this article. The government shutdown caused peoples surveys to be different than normal because people did not have a job for the time during the shutdown the main connection between the two is that it shows that polls and surveys may not show the exactly correct data or information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)