Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Chapter 6: The Media | American Politics Today: W. W. Norton StudySpace
Friendly reminder! Chapter 6: The Media | American Politics Today: W. W. Norton StudySpace
During this vacation, you are responsible for reading and studying about the Media in Chapter Six of our textbook. Please take advantage of these online resources to help you with the reading and the assignment. Work hard, look up words you don't know, take breaks, and use these tools to increase your comprehension.
Remember you chose to take this class! Act accordingly.
During this vacation, you are responsible for reading and studying about the Media in Chapter Six of our textbook. Please take advantage of these online resources to help you with the reading and the assignment. Work hard, look up words you don't know, take breaks, and use these tools to increase your comprehension.
Remember you chose to take this class! Act accordingly.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
What is the Answer?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/us/politics/connecticut-shooting-revives-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=politics&adxnnlx=1355877631-+1VRiD0ZuPEiv74EKUJByA
Its been several days since the horrific tragedy that occurred in Newton. But where do we go from here? Of course at first glance the right course of action seems like it would be to ban guns. Clearly they were to blame for this tragedy, right? Well let's think about that for a minute. If guns had been banned when Adam Lanza decided to go on his rampage on Friday, would that have stopped him? If he was fully intent on going on a killing spree, would he not have found different means of his mass murder? Perhaps he would have brought knives instead, or blunt objects like baseball bats. The point I'm trying to make, is that anything can be used as a weapon for killing. To ban guns for the sole reason that people can kill other people with them is (while definitely well intentioned) simply farfetched. To bans guns for that reason, then we'd have to ban knives. We'd have to ban baseball bats. We'd have to ban pillows. We'd have to ban belts. We'd have to ban tall buildings. Look at this tweet I noticed before I wrote this.
(PS, if you want the numbers regarding that tweet, follow Ben and see the new Reality Check that he'll release tonight about it.)
Its been several days since the horrific tragedy that occurred in Newton. But where do we go from here? Of course at first glance the right course of action seems like it would be to ban guns. Clearly they were to blame for this tragedy, right? Well let's think about that for a minute. If guns had been banned when Adam Lanza decided to go on his rampage on Friday, would that have stopped him? If he was fully intent on going on a killing spree, would he not have found different means of his mass murder? Perhaps he would have brought knives instead, or blunt objects like baseball bats. The point I'm trying to make, is that anything can be used as a weapon for killing. To ban guns for the sole reason that people can kill other people with them is (while definitely well intentioned) simply farfetched. To bans guns for that reason, then we'd have to ban knives. We'd have to ban baseball bats. We'd have to ban pillows. We'd have to ban belts. We'd have to ban tall buildings. Look at this tweet I noticed before I wrote this.
If cars are causing more deaths than guns are, then why are we focusing on guns? The answer is not to ban all of these items that happen to be able to be used for killing, because the fact of the matter is that almost everything can be used to kill. What we need to do is figure out what is making these people want to go out and kill. Because if we can't do something about preventing the desire to kill, its going to be pretty hard to stop them no matter what we ban.Reality Check tonight.... instead of banning guns more guns should the U.S. move to ban cars?The numbers show it would save more lives
— Ben Swann (@Fox19BenSwann) December 19, 2012
(PS, if you want the numbers regarding that tweet, follow Ben and see the new Reality Check that he'll release tonight about it.)
Minor parties in the United States of America
Since we do not hear much about minor parties because major parties are always taking over the big screen- political wise; I decided to look for an article that talked about them. This is the link to a pretty good “article” it’s actually letters from people to the Editor on New York Times on ideas of new political parties. ->
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-the-wish-list-party.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The article makes us think about minor parties that consist of lobbyist and rich donors and other parties that would make people from certain geographic places unite. I find the article interesting because it shows us that minor parties are not that hard to be created because there are always things that large groups of people are worried about or are affected by. You all should read this article, its interesting and there are some humorous parts :)
~Shirley-Ann
Sunday, December 16, 2012
People Kill, Not Guns
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/15/fatal-schoolhouse-shootings-in-connecticut-renew-gun-control-debate/
The horrific events that happened this past Friday will stay in our hearts and minds for the rest of our lives. We cannot deny the impact this has had on all of us and the necessary legislative reform that must occur as a result. However, we cannot jump straight to irrational solutions of gun control. The government will not and cannot amend the second amendment to illegalize firearms. According to the FBI, there are about 270,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in the United States; 88.8 firearms per 100 people. America is number one for guns per capita in the world. The media has been saying that the president will try to reinstitute the assault rifles ban which expired in 2004. History has shown that this ban did little in preventing gun violence. In the ten year life of this ban, from 1994 to 2004, 17 mass shootings occurred; including Columbine, 1999. Currently, assault rifles account for only 2-6% of this country's violent crimes. Rather then placing the blame solely on the lack of gun control, we should focus our efforts to target those with a mental illness and preventing them from obtaining firearms. A study held by Mother Jones Magazine found that 38 of the past 61 mass shooters “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings." This does not include Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooting perpetrator, who also showed signs of mental illness. The past can't be changed but the future is undecided. As a country, we must approach this controversial topic in a rational and sensitive manner.
The horrific events that happened this past Friday will stay in our hearts and minds for the rest of our lives. We cannot deny the impact this has had on all of us and the necessary legislative reform that must occur as a result. However, we cannot jump straight to irrational solutions of gun control. The government will not and cannot amend the second amendment to illegalize firearms. According to the FBI, there are about 270,000,000 guns owned by private citizens in the United States; 88.8 firearms per 100 people. America is number one for guns per capita in the world. The media has been saying that the president will try to reinstitute the assault rifles ban which expired in 2004. History has shown that this ban did little in preventing gun violence. In the ten year life of this ban, from 1994 to 2004, 17 mass shootings occurred; including Columbine, 1999. Currently, assault rifles account for only 2-6% of this country's violent crimes. Rather then placing the blame solely on the lack of gun control, we should focus our efforts to target those with a mental illness and preventing them from obtaining firearms. A study held by Mother Jones Magazine found that 38 of the past 61 mass shooters “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings." This does not include Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooting perpetrator, who also showed signs of mental illness. The past can't be changed but the future is undecided. As a country, we must approach this controversial topic in a rational and sensitive manner.
Say "YES" to BAN Gun Control.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/politics/bloomberg-urges-obama-to-take-action-on-gun-control.html?ref=us&_r=0
My heart shattered to pieces when I heard about the Sandy Hook Elementary School killing. The first thought came to my mind after listening about this tragic incident is rethinking about what is written in the Second Amendment. I mean this law was made years ago when things were not as crazy and serious but times have changed and sometimes we have to follow along with the world rather than to look back. Really? What is more important: LIVES OR LAWS? It is so hard to believe that Congress isn't even thinking about banning weapons after losing the lives of twenty innocent children and six responsible adults. Someone said it right: "No one cares unless they are affected by it." My heart cries whenever I hear about these kids and their teachers. Why? Why out of all the people in this world did that murderer choose little innocent kids out of all the people in the world? What did they do to ruin his life that he treated them this way? What was his weakness? Why did he do this? We can always feel bad for tragedies like this, we always can lend support to those who are victims of such actions and we can always say how sorry we are but only the families of those kids and teachers can feel the real pain. They have lost the most important parts of their lives that maybe no one can replace. All I can say is God bless and rest in peace and may no one ever have to suffer like this ever again.
Just like I mentioned in the first paragraph, Congress need to take action! My biggest takeaway was when I read that the Democrats have failed in requesting Congress to pass a bill that bans the use of weapons because there is a law that prohibits to ban weapons such as the ones used by the criminal in the murder of Sandy Hook Elementary School kids and teachers. This is really sad. People have lost their HUMANITY! How much more explanation do they need then the lives of innocent little children.
Like Mr. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, said in the article that The Party in Power so basically the Democrats will be blamed for this tragic incident. Meaning they will be held accountable for this incident if they don't take any action and he is right when he says that "His job is to perform and protect the American public." I completely agree with Mr. Bloomberg because people (citizens) will only blame President Obama for sitting still in such hard times. Can our divided government work together to make sure that incidents like this don't ever happen again? It is going to be hard because our government is so Polarized, Republicans begin so traditional and following not wanting to change the Amendment and Democrats being more liberal and want to make change to help the people of our nation.
What does this situation say about the Republican party? Will our world ever go far with such differences? How many more innocent lives will it take for the government to ban the use of weapons?
My heart shattered to pieces when I heard about the Sandy Hook Elementary School killing. The first thought came to my mind after listening about this tragic incident is rethinking about what is written in the Second Amendment. I mean this law was made years ago when things were not as crazy and serious but times have changed and sometimes we have to follow along with the world rather than to look back. Really? What is more important: LIVES OR LAWS? It is so hard to believe that Congress isn't even thinking about banning weapons after losing the lives of twenty innocent children and six responsible adults. Someone said it right: "No one cares unless they are affected by it." My heart cries whenever I hear about these kids and their teachers. Why? Why out of all the people in this world did that murderer choose little innocent kids out of all the people in the world? What did they do to ruin his life that he treated them this way? What was his weakness? Why did he do this? We can always feel bad for tragedies like this, we always can lend support to those who are victims of such actions and we can always say how sorry we are but only the families of those kids and teachers can feel the real pain. They have lost the most important parts of their lives that maybe no one can replace. All I can say is God bless and rest in peace and may no one ever have to suffer like this ever again.
Just like I mentioned in the first paragraph, Congress need to take action! My biggest takeaway was when I read that the Democrats have failed in requesting Congress to pass a bill that bans the use of weapons because there is a law that prohibits to ban weapons such as the ones used by the criminal in the murder of Sandy Hook Elementary School kids and teachers. This is really sad. People have lost their HUMANITY! How much more explanation do they need then the lives of innocent little children.
Like Mr. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, said in the article that The Party in Power so basically the Democrats will be blamed for this tragic incident. Meaning they will be held accountable for this incident if they don't take any action and he is right when he says that "His job is to perform and protect the American public." I completely agree with Mr. Bloomberg because people (citizens) will only blame President Obama for sitting still in such hard times. Can our divided government work together to make sure that incidents like this don't ever happen again? It is going to be hard because our government is so Polarized, Republicans begin so traditional and following not wanting to change the Amendment and Democrats being more liberal and want to make change to help the people of our nation.
What does this situation say about the Republican party? Will our world ever go far with such differences? How many more innocent lives will it take for the government to ban the use of weapons?
Business Owners: Tax Hikes Good Or Bad?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/12/12/167097266/for-business-owners-higher-taxes-could-mean-fewer-new-hires-or-more
Raising taxes on the rich 2 percent of America certainly targets the business owners, however a very small percent of them actually are affected. But then there is a portion that are right over the threshold of that $250,000 mark off that can avoid the tax hike. These tax hikes can actually act as a incentive for these business owners to hire more workers because it would lower their potential tax rate.
The issue of taxing has polarized the democrats and republicans indefinitely. Democrats feel that the tax hikes for the wealthy 2 percent is the best way to decrease the deficit, however Republicans disagree. Due to this, Congress fails to compromise on this issue creating more conflict and public fear of the "Fiscal Cliff". These party platforms on ideas are so strong in the congressmen that they can't find an agreement on not only this issue, but many others. This is the reason why their approval rating is at a record low. Congress has made it seem like a divided government has no capability in creating compromises to solve issues.
Do tax hikes help the economy as we get closer to the "fiscal cliff"? Would creating a tax hike that business owners can avoid beneficial?
Raising taxes on the rich 2 percent of America certainly targets the business owners, however a very small percent of them actually are affected. But then there is a portion that are right over the threshold of that $250,000 mark off that can avoid the tax hike. These tax hikes can actually act as a incentive for these business owners to hire more workers because it would lower their potential tax rate.
The issue of taxing has polarized the democrats and republicans indefinitely. Democrats feel that the tax hikes for the wealthy 2 percent is the best way to decrease the deficit, however Republicans disagree. Due to this, Congress fails to compromise on this issue creating more conflict and public fear of the "Fiscal Cliff". These party platforms on ideas are so strong in the congressmen that they can't find an agreement on not only this issue, but many others. This is the reason why their approval rating is at a record low. Congress has made it seem like a divided government has no capability in creating compromises to solve issues.
Do tax hikes help the economy as we get closer to the "fiscal cliff"? Would creating a tax hike that business owners can avoid beneficial?
After 12.15.12: A Look Into the Legislative Process
As I watched the Sunday morning news programs today, I took notice of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) of California and her announcement of the plan to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban. I acknowledge the grief and the distance that this event should have from politics. However, I also know that politics is everywhere and those of you who want to see the political response should have a chance to do so.
There will be many individual responses to this tragedy. I ask each of you to care for one another as we process it in our own way.
Pick a Party Before October 12
Party identification plays a major
role in elections, no matter which election. This article in particular is
about the primary elections for mayor in New York in comparison to New
Jersey. In most states, in our party
system, we have either an open primary or a closed primary election. In New Jersey
a person can decide which party’s candidate they vote for when they go to vote.
This is an open primary election. In a closed primary election a registered
voter has to register under a party to be able to vote in that party’s primary
election. This article is a bit older but gives you a good look at New York’s
version of a closed primary election. As the article points out the majority of
people do really definitely decide who they will vote for, or what side they
agree with (if they were undecided) until the last month of the election. This
is a problem because in New York a person must register under that party by
October 12. They make a good point that left up to the people to choose what
party’s ballot they receive, they may chose the opposite party and vote for a
weak candidate on purpose.
“Of 3.9 million active registered
voters in New York City, 2.68 million are Democrats, 441,000 are Republicans
and 666,000 have no affiliation.” The restrictions on New York primary election
voters I believe have a huge impact on who not only wins the primary election
and the general election but how well they represent the people of New York City.
666,000 registered voters have no clue
who they want to win the election and a lot can happen in a month. That is
potentially 666,000 people, who care about the people in charge of them, that
do not get accurately represented because either they registered with a party
before they had the chance to receive all the info they need to make a well informed
decision or they missed the deadline to register before the 12 because they had
no clue yet who they wanted to vote for. No one is perfect; it is quite easy to
miss a deadline, especially one like this when the actual deadline is technically
almost a whole month later.
Which election type do you believe will best serve to represent
the people even with the drawbacks from that type? Why do you believe this will
best represent the people’s choice? (Take in consideration closed and open
primaries, not blanket primaries)
"Where Is God Now?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57559325/will-connecticut-school-shooting-spur-gun-control-action/?pageNum=2
Throughout your life, you've always heard the statement, "In God We Trust", showing commitment that our country is a land of opportunities. The question that many people are asking is "Where is God now?" Think about it, what place can you go that's safe? That's right, basically nowhere. Shootings at schools, movie theathers, malls, church, and even homes, plus other crimes everywhere. What's up country? What is there to think, when more and more of our citizens die for nothing? From Friday's school shooting in Newtown, the majority of the victims were children between the ages of 6 and 10. USA WAKE UP!!!
Here's my question: are the political parties doing enough to support our people? That's where the question of, "Where is God Now?", comes into the response. Just like the statement, "In God We Trust", are these party leaders and President Obama trusting enough? Right now the two major parties are polarized about the Second Amendment: Democrats are against this amendment for the citizens, and Republicans are always traditional and support it. But what is there to think about when some crazy person murdered 20 children? After this horrific massacre, what do the Republicans think about the Second Amendment? What impact will our country have in the future if the gun control is banned, or not? What about other children, what risks will they encounter in the future? People this is not a joke, this act needs to be prevented from another disaster! So, will our divided government come to an agreement about this situation? Will the crosscutting about the Second Amendment end? Will President Obama and our government push to protect and treat every citizen equally?
I'm not trying to influence anyone to believe in God, but to those that do believe: God is always with us, but we, as a country haven't done enough: weakness. Republicans need to rethink this amendment. This amendment should only be used for our soldiers risking their lives to protect our country. But for the citizens, no way. It just can't. We don't need another sick person to harm our innocent citizens. There has been too much to bear. America, "our hearts are broken".
We need to wake up...
Throughout your life, you've always heard the statement, "In God We Trust", showing commitment that our country is a land of opportunities. The question that many people are asking is "Where is God now?" Think about it, what place can you go that's safe? That's right, basically nowhere. Shootings at schools, movie theathers, malls, church, and even homes, plus other crimes everywhere. What's up country? What is there to think, when more and more of our citizens die for nothing? From Friday's school shooting in Newtown, the majority of the victims were children between the ages of 6 and 10. USA WAKE UP!!!
Here's my question: are the political parties doing enough to support our people? That's where the question of, "Where is God Now?", comes into the response. Just like the statement, "In God We Trust", are these party leaders and President Obama trusting enough? Right now the two major parties are polarized about the Second Amendment: Democrats are against this amendment for the citizens, and Republicans are always traditional and support it. But what is there to think about when some crazy person murdered 20 children? After this horrific massacre, what do the Republicans think about the Second Amendment? What impact will our country have in the future if the gun control is banned, or not? What about other children, what risks will they encounter in the future? People this is not a joke, this act needs to be prevented from another disaster! So, will our divided government come to an agreement about this situation? Will the crosscutting about the Second Amendment end? Will President Obama and our government push to protect and treat every citizen equally?
I'm not trying to influence anyone to believe in God, but to those that do believe: God is always with us, but we, as a country haven't done enough: weakness. Republicans need to rethink this amendment. This amendment should only be used for our soldiers risking their lives to protect our country. But for the citizens, no way. It just can't. We don't need another sick person to harm our innocent citizens. There has been too much to bear. America, "our hearts are broken".
We need to wake up...
A Major Wake-Up Call
In the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, many Americans are astounded, devastated, heartbroken, and disgusted. When I first heard about the shooting on the news, my heart dropped and I felt like I couldn't breathe. I could not fathom how any human being could murder innocent children. After getting over my initial shock, I knew that gun violence had to be stopped in our country. In 2012 alone, there have been several mass shootings. For example, on July 20, 2012, there was a mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Twelve people were killed and fifty-eight were wounded. It is an injustice that young children cannot attend school without fearing for their lives. I firmly believe that gun control needs to be strengthened to prevent more tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
While doing research, I came across an article entitled, "Obama Remains Committed to Assault Weapons Ban, White House Says."
The link to the article is: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/politics/obama-assault-weapons/index.html?hpt=po_c2
When it comes to guns and weapons, the country is extremely polarized. Many citizens believe that there should be heavy restrictions on guns to prevent violence and murders, while other citizens stress the importance of the Second Amendment, which gives the right to bear arms. Over the years, there have been constant arguments over how much control there should be over guns. All of these arguments came to a standstill after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Obama has been under scrutiny for not doing much about gun control. In the 2008 presidential election, gun restrictions were a part of his platform, but he failed to act on his promise. After the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama has taken a strong stance on reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons.
This may seem problematic considering that the Republicans, who support gun freedom, have a majority in the House of Representatives. Despite this, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting really touched a lot of people. No matter what your party identification, you want your children and loved ones to be safe. If you have a heart, you will not stand for such inhumanity.President Obama stated, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York best put it, "We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life. If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is." Although it remains to be seen whether the government will be able to compromise and stop gun violence, it is clear that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a major wake-up call to the issue of gun violence in the United States.
Do you think that our divided government can come together and stop gun violence? What do you think should be done to prevent more incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Do you believe that the shooting will catalyze change or will things go back to being the same?
I encourage everyone to pray for the families that lost their children and loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Tell your family members that you love them everyday because they can be taken away from you in an instant. You truly do not know how good you have it.
While doing research, I came across an article entitled, "Obama Remains Committed to Assault Weapons Ban, White House Says."
The link to the article is: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/politics/obama-assault-weapons/index.html?hpt=po_c2
When it comes to guns and weapons, the country is extremely polarized. Many citizens believe that there should be heavy restrictions on guns to prevent violence and murders, while other citizens stress the importance of the Second Amendment, which gives the right to bear arms. Over the years, there have been constant arguments over how much control there should be over guns. All of these arguments came to a standstill after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Obama has been under scrutiny for not doing much about gun control. In the 2008 presidential election, gun restrictions were a part of his platform, but he failed to act on his promise. After the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama has taken a strong stance on reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons.
This may seem problematic considering that the Republicans, who support gun freedom, have a majority in the House of Representatives. Despite this, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting really touched a lot of people. No matter what your party identification, you want your children and loved ones to be safe. If you have a heart, you will not stand for such inhumanity.President Obama stated, "We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics." Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York best put it, "We cannot simply accept this as a routine product of modern American life. If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is." Although it remains to be seen whether the government will be able to compromise and stop gun violence, it is clear that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a major wake-up call to the issue of gun violence in the United States.
Do you think that our divided government can come together and stop gun violence? What do you think should be done to prevent more incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Do you believe that the shooting will catalyze change or will things go back to being the same?
I encourage everyone to pray for the families that lost their children and loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Tell your family members that you love them everyday because they can be taken away from you in an instant. You truly do not know how good you have it.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
More Religion in Schools: the Bad, the Bad, and the Ugly
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/15/huckabee-lack-of-religion-in-classroom-leads-to-violence-in-schools/?hpt=po_c2
I know that this doesn't have a connection to what we've been discussing in our class but I really wanted to make a comment on it. In light of the recent school shooting in Newtown CT, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has come out and said that new gun regulation laws won't change anything and points the finger instead at the lack of religion in schools. I want to make it clear that the point of this post is not insult anyone's faith or hurt anyone's feelings. With that in mind I encourage anyone who is sensitive about others talking about their/or any one else's religion to pay no mind to this post. I personally don't see how teaching or just inserting more religion would've prevented this or similar tragedies. I honestly believe that their are some parts of the bible and Jesus's teachings that are well meaning and preach humility, and kindness to all people. On the other hand there are plenty of parts that preach that killing homosexuals is a good thing, slavery is acceptable and that women should be treated like semi-conscious property. If we forced religion down our children's throats then we'll be just shaming them into hating themselves and their bodies since their so sinful. We could also easily be setting some of them on the path to extremism (Jim Jones anyone?), but alas I digress as this discussion is about the validity of Mr.Huckabee's statement not credibility of religion. It is very easy to prove his statement wrong since their is no evidence that says teaching religion in schools reduces violence and even if their was some people would sadly still commit atrocities like this one. Among today's modern industrialized countries America ranks among the most religious, and yet we have some of the highest murder rates in the world. Teaching kids to worship Jesus would have about the same affect on these facts as teaching them to worship Allah, Zeus, Apollo, or Iron Man.
I know that this doesn't have a connection to what we've been discussing in our class but I really wanted to make a comment on it. In light of the recent school shooting in Newtown CT, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has come out and said that new gun regulation laws won't change anything and points the finger instead at the lack of religion in schools. I want to make it clear that the point of this post is not insult anyone's faith or hurt anyone's feelings. With that in mind I encourage anyone who is sensitive about others talking about their/or any one else's religion to pay no mind to this post. I personally don't see how teaching or just inserting more religion would've prevented this or similar tragedies. I honestly believe that their are some parts of the bible and Jesus's teachings that are well meaning and preach humility, and kindness to all people. On the other hand there are plenty of parts that preach that killing homosexuals is a good thing, slavery is acceptable and that women should be treated like semi-conscious property. If we forced religion down our children's throats then we'll be just shaming them into hating themselves and their bodies since their so sinful. We could also easily be setting some of them on the path to extremism (Jim Jones anyone?), but alas I digress as this discussion is about the validity of Mr.Huckabee's statement not credibility of religion. It is very easy to prove his statement wrong since their is no evidence that says teaching religion in schools reduces violence and even if their was some people would sadly still commit atrocities like this one. Among today's modern industrialized countries America ranks among the most religious, and yet we have some of the highest murder rates in the world. Teaching kids to worship Jesus would have about the same affect on these facts as teaching them to worship Allah, Zeus, Apollo, or Iron Man.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Heading Towards the Cliff
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/us/politics/questions-on-whether-boehner-could-sell-a-budget-deal-to-gop.html?ref=politics&_r=0
If you've watched the news recently, you've probably heard about the looming "fiscal cliff". I know I have. It's one of those things that I wonder about, but until now, never took the time to do some research on it. The fiscal cliff is something that will begin in 2013 if, as one of the explanation articles down below says, politicians make some "very bad congressional decisions." That means if there is no agreement reached on how to reduce the nation's deficit and overall improve our economy, then we will go over this "fiscal cliff". Meaning, there could be major tax increases and spending cuts if things don't take a turn for the good soon.
Put simply, what is happening currently, as explained in the article, Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are working to come up with a plan for reducing our nation's growing deficit. This connects to our lesson about parties and also previous lessons because in order for something to get approved, there need to be enough votes. In our government, parties have to work together at times, which is something I personally like because it shows unity. It shows that, while our country may be divided in a lot of ways politically, we are still united.
However, the problem with parties working together is that they have their own views, their own ways of taking on issues. Republicans typically don't want to raise taxes on the rich, or if they do it's not as high of an amount as Democrats. Barack Obama called for $600 billion more of taxes collected from the wealthy over a period of ten years than the Republicans did, for example. “Taxes are going to go up one way or another and I think the key is that taxes go up on high-end individuals", Barack Obama said.
Politics is conflictual, very conflictual, so there are always disagreements with things, due to the strong beliefs of both parties. As shown in a chart in chapter 7 of the textbook, their views are very different. Decades ago, the parties' views, as Grabriska said in our class, "mingled", so the views of parties mixed more. Throughout history there have been a series of party systems, in which one party was dominant, such as the fifth party system where the Democrats were dominant. There have been a lot of realignments in the past as well, where overall the views of the American Public have changed. During the current party system, the sixth, dealignment has been occurring, which is when people aren't as associated with parties as much, or even with politics in general. So with all of these alignments and dealignments, political views have changed a lot, and now views are more polarizing than before between not only the American Public but with political parties. So that plays a role, I believe, in the strong conflict between parties when doing almost anything.
With this in mind, do you think some plan will be put in place to reduce our deficit before we go over the "fiscal cliff"? Or will we go over? Why? Do you think there should be less conflict between parties? Or is that an unavoidable thing?
Explanation of Fiscal Cliff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/27/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-in-one-faq/
If you've watched the news recently, you've probably heard about the looming "fiscal cliff". I know I have. It's one of those things that I wonder about, but until now, never took the time to do some research on it. The fiscal cliff is something that will begin in 2013 if, as one of the explanation articles down below says, politicians make some "very bad congressional decisions." That means if there is no agreement reached on how to reduce the nation's deficit and overall improve our economy, then we will go over this "fiscal cliff". Meaning, there could be major tax increases and spending cuts if things don't take a turn for the good soon.
Put simply, what is happening currently, as explained in the article, Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner are working to come up with a plan for reducing our nation's growing deficit. This connects to our lesson about parties and also previous lessons because in order for something to get approved, there need to be enough votes. In our government, parties have to work together at times, which is something I personally like because it shows unity. It shows that, while our country may be divided in a lot of ways politically, we are still united.
However, the problem with parties working together is that they have their own views, their own ways of taking on issues. Republicans typically don't want to raise taxes on the rich, or if they do it's not as high of an amount as Democrats. Barack Obama called for $600 billion more of taxes collected from the wealthy over a period of ten years than the Republicans did, for example. “Taxes are going to go up one way or another and I think the key is that taxes go up on high-end individuals", Barack Obama said.
Politics is conflictual, very conflictual, so there are always disagreements with things, due to the strong beliefs of both parties. As shown in a chart in chapter 7 of the textbook, their views are very different. Decades ago, the parties' views, as Grabriska said in our class, "mingled", so the views of parties mixed more. Throughout history there have been a series of party systems, in which one party was dominant, such as the fifth party system where the Democrats were dominant. There have been a lot of realignments in the past as well, where overall the views of the American Public have changed. During the current party system, the sixth, dealignment has been occurring, which is when people aren't as associated with parties as much, or even with politics in general. So with all of these alignments and dealignments, political views have changed a lot, and now views are more polarizing than before between not only the American Public but with political parties. So that plays a role, I believe, in the strong conflict between parties when doing almost anything.
With this in mind, do you think some plan will be put in place to reduce our deficit before we go over the "fiscal cliff"? Or will we go over? Why? Do you think there should be less conflict between parties? Or is that an unavoidable thing?
Explanation of Fiscal Cliff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fiscal_cliff
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/27/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-in-one-faq/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)