Link to Article
On May 22 nine monkeys arrived at an Oregon zoo. Only two days later, six of them were dead. As of right now no one knows the cause of death. The Necropsy results came back inconclusive and the zoo is still waiting to hear back from the pathology report. Six monkeys simultaniously dieing comes as a shock. However, only months before an orangutan also died in the Oregon zoo's care. This time it was the zoo's fault. There were mistakes in the treatment and care of the orangutan which resulted in the firing of some of the zoo's staff. This relates to AP GoPo becuase it goes along with our environmental policy and the idea that our government allows zoos to be established.
In my opinion this is an awful tragedy. Its always sad when animals die. Its even more sad when they die in human captivity. Which brings me to a hard place; as much as I love to see and learn about animals I can't help but feel like there is no good that comes from zoos besides bringing in money. I can justify taking anumals from their habitat to study them and learn about them for science and research. However, just parading around animals isn't cool. An animal kept in captivity usually can never go back out into the wild and survive which is extremely sad. They're kept cooped up in cages for the rest of their lives. If anyone decided to have a human zoo, everyone would throw a fit so whats the difference when it comes to animals? Although it may seem we as humans are the superior species, in my opinion this is not true. When it comes down to it we're all just entities in this universe no one better than the next.
Friday, May 30, 2014
Thursday, May 22, 2014
House passes watered down NSA reform bill
Link to Article
This article is about the new National Secuity Agency (NSA) reform bill that was passed on Thursday. This new bill is a bit controversial. The biggest change to the bill is the tweaked language defining who or what the NSA is allowed to monitor. The bill was altered to greatly expand that definition. The amended bill leaves the list of potential search terms open-ended by adding the phrase "such as" -- it says NSA searches must be tied to "a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device." The White House put out a statement of support for the finalized bill, saying the legislation "ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation, while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected when these authorities are employed." This relates to AP GoPo because it deals with our fourth amendment rights.
Personally I think this is a bunch of bologna, but then again I'm a believer in most conspiracy theories so it could just be me being crazy. However, I do believe this is walking a fine line between being constitutional and obstructing our fourth amendment rights. I think there is no way possible to use one term that specifically identifies a person. Furthermore, I think that this doesn't help to protect the Nation, but rather creates an even more blind society that has no idea whats going on behind closed doos in their government. In my opinon there is a lot we don't know that the government hides from us and most of it is crazy insane things you would never imagine are possible. While some may say some things are better left kept secret, I say ignorance is not bliss.
This article is about the new National Secuity Agency (NSA) reform bill that was passed on Thursday. This new bill is a bit controversial. The biggest change to the bill is the tweaked language defining who or what the NSA is allowed to monitor. The bill was altered to greatly expand that definition. The amended bill leaves the list of potential search terms open-ended by adding the phrase "such as" -- it says NSA searches must be tied to "a discrete term, such as a term specifically identifying a person, entity, account, address, or device." The White House put out a statement of support for the finalized bill, saying the legislation "ensures our intelligence and law enforcement professionals have the authorities they need to protect the Nation, while further ensuring that individuals' privacy is appropriately protected when these authorities are employed." This relates to AP GoPo because it deals with our fourth amendment rights.
Personally I think this is a bunch of bologna, but then again I'm a believer in most conspiracy theories so it could just be me being crazy. However, I do believe this is walking a fine line between being constitutional and obstructing our fourth amendment rights. I think there is no way possible to use one term that specifically identifies a person. Furthermore, I think that this doesn't help to protect the Nation, but rather creates an even more blind society that has no idea whats going on behind closed doos in their government. In my opinon there is a lot we don't know that the government hides from us and most of it is crazy insane things you would never imagine are possible. While some may say some things are better left kept secret, I say ignorance is not bliss.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
American Idol Contesant turned Congressman?
Link to Article
This article is about former American Idol Contestant Clay Aiken. Aiken is now running for Congress in North Carolina. He says his fame from American Idol is sort of a double-edged sword. He wants the public to view him in a different light and to take him and his run for congressman in a more serious way. However, the GOP candidate he is running against, Renee Ellmers, thinks differently. Ellmers says that Clay Aiken got bored of his fame from American Idol and that is why he decided to run for North Carolina Congressman. Either way, this article is a prime example again of the media and how big of a role the media can play in politics.
Personally I think that people shouldn't let Clay Aiken's fame from American Idol sway the way he/she feels about Clay Aiken. I don't think that people should not vote for him just because they think he doesnt know what hes doing based on the fact that he was on American Idol. If you think Clay doesn't know what hes doing based on his political views then that is a valid reason not to vote for him. Basically, you shouldn't let a persons past influence the present.
This article is about former American Idol Contestant Clay Aiken. Aiken is now running for Congress in North Carolina. He says his fame from American Idol is sort of a double-edged sword. He wants the public to view him in a different light and to take him and his run for congressman in a more serious way. However, the GOP candidate he is running against, Renee Ellmers, thinks differently. Ellmers says that Clay Aiken got bored of his fame from American Idol and that is why he decided to run for North Carolina Congressman. Either way, this article is a prime example again of the media and how big of a role the media can play in politics.
Personally I think that people shouldn't let Clay Aiken's fame from American Idol sway the way he/she feels about Clay Aiken. I don't think that people should not vote for him just because they think he doesnt know what hes doing based on the fact that he was on American Idol. If you think Clay doesn't know what hes doing based on his political views then that is a valid reason not to vote for him. Basically, you shouldn't let a persons past influence the present.
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Harvard student group cancels 'Satanic Black Mass' after outcry
Link to Article
In the above article, a group of students from the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club were planning on re-enacting a 'Satanic Black Mass'. This mass is a parody of the traditional Catholic mass. According to the Extensions School's dean, Robert Neugeboren, the event was going to be held in a series of others that explored rituals of different cultures. However, due to many student, staff, and community members opposition to the event, the club decided to cancel it. Harvard did not step in and deny the students their right. They believed that the right to freedom of expression not only includes those actions you agree with but also those you may not agree with. One of the opposers to the event, the Archdioses of Boston said,"If this had been a re-enactment of a Nazi rally or a lynching, the university would have stepped in quickly and stopped it". This relates to AP GoPo because it deals with the Bill of Rights and our first amendment right to freedom of religion, assembly, pettition, press, and speech.
Personally, I think this is lame. I understand that a satanic ritual may come off as a bit taboo. But why does taboo have to be a bad thing? Furthermore, it was just a re-enactment to explore and learn about other cultures. And even if it wasn't, its their right to practice those events. Personally, if I don't like something I just try not to involve myself with it rather than trying to stop it from happening. I wish more people could be tolerant of others. This also bums me out just because it shows the power of influence masses of people can have on others. Which is why we should all strive to not succumb to peer presure. I am proud though, of the Harvard Extension school for not stepping in and banning the event from happenning.
In the above article, a group of students from the Harvard Extension Cultural Studies Club were planning on re-enacting a 'Satanic Black Mass'. This mass is a parody of the traditional Catholic mass. According to the Extensions School's dean, Robert Neugeboren, the event was going to be held in a series of others that explored rituals of different cultures. However, due to many student, staff, and community members opposition to the event, the club decided to cancel it. Harvard did not step in and deny the students their right. They believed that the right to freedom of expression not only includes those actions you agree with but also those you may not agree with. One of the opposers to the event, the Archdioses of Boston said,"If this had been a re-enactment of a Nazi rally or a lynching, the university would have stepped in quickly and stopped it". This relates to AP GoPo because it deals with the Bill of Rights and our first amendment right to freedom of religion, assembly, pettition, press, and speech.
Personally, I think this is lame. I understand that a satanic ritual may come off as a bit taboo. But why does taboo have to be a bad thing? Furthermore, it was just a re-enactment to explore and learn about other cultures. And even if it wasn't, its their right to practice those events. Personally, if I don't like something I just try not to involve myself with it rather than trying to stop it from happening. I wish more people could be tolerant of others. This also bums me out just because it shows the power of influence masses of people can have on others. Which is why we should all strive to not succumb to peer presure. I am proud though, of the Harvard Extension school for not stepping in and banning the event from happenning.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Hillary Clinton Works to Neutralize the Only 2016 Opponent She Fears: The Media
Link to Article
This article talks about Hilary Clinton and her hopeful run for presidency in the 2016 presidential election. However, the main focus of the article is how she is reluctant to run because of the negative press she will get. In fact a "Clinton Veteran" said "She wants to be president; she doesn’t want to run for president,". We're all pretty familiar with Hilary's husband and his legendary terms as president with regards to being in the media. His notorious fame from the press undoubtedly falls onto Hilary as well. In 2008 Clinton ran for the democratic presidential nominee but lost. She blames it partially on the press drooling over her competition. However, some people disagree with Clinton and feel like she is using "bad press" as an excuse. Whatever the case may be, it just goes to show how powerful the media can be. Just as we've previously talked about in AP GoPo, some would say, the media is equivalent to a fourth branch of government with the amount of power it wields.
In my opinion I think that yes the media can at most times be a negative aspect of our society. However, if Clinton really wants to be President she won't let something as annoying as the media stop her. However, there is still time for her to decide whether or not she wants to run. Seeing as most candidates don't announce their committment to running for president until the spring or summer of the year before the election.
This article talks about Hilary Clinton and her hopeful run for presidency in the 2016 presidential election. However, the main focus of the article is how she is reluctant to run because of the negative press she will get. In fact a "Clinton Veteran" said "She wants to be president; she doesn’t want to run for president,". We're all pretty familiar with Hilary's husband and his legendary terms as president with regards to being in the media. His notorious fame from the press undoubtedly falls onto Hilary as well. In 2008 Clinton ran for the democratic presidential nominee but lost. She blames it partially on the press drooling over her competition. However, some people disagree with Clinton and feel like she is using "bad press" as an excuse. Whatever the case may be, it just goes to show how powerful the media can be. Just as we've previously talked about in AP GoPo, some would say, the media is equivalent to a fourth branch of government with the amount of power it wields.
In my opinion I think that yes the media can at most times be a negative aspect of our society. However, if Clinton really wants to be President she won't let something as annoying as the media stop her. However, there is still time for her to decide whether or not she wants to run. Seeing as most candidates don't announce their committment to running for president until the spring or summer of the year before the election.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Justices: 28 states must slash wind-blown pollution
Link to Article
This article is about a recent Supreme Court ruling about air pollution. The question in this case was who should pay for air pollution that crosses state lines? In a 6-2 majority ruling the Justices agreed that states in the Midwest and South whose polluted air flows north and east must follow a federally imposed solution. This solution includes slashing ozone and fine particle emissions. However, most of these 28 states that are included under this federally mandated rule are not too happy. These states believe that the EPA is issuing a solution for them before the states themselves even had a chance to come up with their own plan of action. Like it or not these states are going to have to comply with the rules. Afterall, just as we've recently learned, theres no higher court than the Supreme Court. Therefore, they have the final say; what they say goes. Furthermore, federal law trumps state laws and since these are federally mandated rules the states must abide by them.
In my opinion I think the question is a bit bizarre in the first place. How are we to place blame on specific states for air pollution when air is mobile? I definitely agree that we as a nation and even more so as a world should cut back on our ozone and particle emissions. As of right now, we only have this planet and its time to start acknowledging that and start treating our home accordingly. I think it is a little stupid to place blame on only 28 states. Rather every state in the nation should abide by these rules in order to make the Earth a healthier place to live. By placing blame on specific states it turns them against each other when instead, we should all be coming together for the greater purpse of improving the planet we live on.
This article is about a recent Supreme Court ruling about air pollution. The question in this case was who should pay for air pollution that crosses state lines? In a 6-2 majority ruling the Justices agreed that states in the Midwest and South whose polluted air flows north and east must follow a federally imposed solution. This solution includes slashing ozone and fine particle emissions. However, most of these 28 states that are included under this federally mandated rule are not too happy. These states believe that the EPA is issuing a solution for them before the states themselves even had a chance to come up with their own plan of action. Like it or not these states are going to have to comply with the rules. Afterall, just as we've recently learned, theres no higher court than the Supreme Court. Therefore, they have the final say; what they say goes. Furthermore, federal law trumps state laws and since these are federally mandated rules the states must abide by them.
In my opinion I think the question is a bit bizarre in the first place. How are we to place blame on specific states for air pollution when air is mobile? I definitely agree that we as a nation and even more so as a world should cut back on our ozone and particle emissions. As of right now, we only have this planet and its time to start acknowledging that and start treating our home accordingly. I think it is a little stupid to place blame on only 28 states. Rather every state in the nation should abide by these rules in order to make the Earth a healthier place to live. By placing blame on specific states it turns them against each other when instead, we should all be coming together for the greater purpse of improving the planet we live on.
Friday, April 11, 2014
Obama Bids Health Secretary Goodbye as He Names Successor
Link to Article
This article talks about Kathleen Sebelius and how she is saying her farewells as Heath Secretary. The article does not explicitly say why Kathleen is leaving. However, it does mention that Obama took the time to publicly thank her for her time as his Health Secretary. While she was under this position, Kathleen helped to pass the 2010 Healthcare Law. She had troubles getting the Obamacare exchange website running. However, the end result was a sucess with almost seven and a half people enrolling in insurance plans under Obamacare. As Kathleen leaves her position, President Barack Obama has appointed Sylvia Mathews Burwell the new Health Secretary. Currently Sylvia serves as the director of Office of Management and Budget. Obama says she knows what shes doing and can "deliver results". He aslo hopes that the Senate will approve her in a timely manner, seeing as they unanimously approved her when she was appointed director of Office of Management and Budget. This relates to AP GoPo because we've recently learned the different powers of the President. One of these include the power to appoint members of his/her cabinet. However, the senate must approve all presidential appointments. Which, in this case, we see working first hand.
With this article there isn't much to have a lot of opinions on. However, I can say that I enjoy learning something and then seeing it in action. Also I love the way our government is set up with checks and balances; this being an example of one of them. Obama has appointed a new Health Secretary and now he waits for the Senate's approval. The awesome system of checks and balances allows for no one branch of governement to gain too much power.... the beauty of AMERICA! :D
This article talks about Kathleen Sebelius and how she is saying her farewells as Heath Secretary. The article does not explicitly say why Kathleen is leaving. However, it does mention that Obama took the time to publicly thank her for her time as his Health Secretary. While she was under this position, Kathleen helped to pass the 2010 Healthcare Law. She had troubles getting the Obamacare exchange website running. However, the end result was a sucess with almost seven and a half people enrolling in insurance plans under Obamacare. As Kathleen leaves her position, President Barack Obama has appointed Sylvia Mathews Burwell the new Health Secretary. Currently Sylvia serves as the director of Office of Management and Budget. Obama says she knows what shes doing and can "deliver results". He aslo hopes that the Senate will approve her in a timely manner, seeing as they unanimously approved her when she was appointed director of Office of Management and Budget. This relates to AP GoPo because we've recently learned the different powers of the President. One of these include the power to appoint members of his/her cabinet. However, the senate must approve all presidential appointments. Which, in this case, we see working first hand.
With this article there isn't much to have a lot of opinions on. However, I can say that I enjoy learning something and then seeing it in action. Also I love the way our government is set up with checks and balances; this being an example of one of them. Obama has appointed a new Health Secretary and now he waits for the Senate's approval. The awesome system of checks and balances allows for no one branch of governement to gain too much power.... the beauty of AMERICA! :D
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Ted Cruz: Religious Liberties Under Attack
Link to Article
In the above article, the author writes about Ted Cruz encouraging students at a top Christian University to stand up for what they belive in and say no to parts of the Health Care Act. Ted Cruz is a Republican senator from Texas. On Wedneday he went to Liberty University in Virgina to speak to the student body. Cruz told them that it is their "responsibility to push back" against President Barak Obama and the Health Care Act that includes coverage for birth control. He believes that it is forcing businesses and religious groups to provide access to something that they may not be supportive of. Ted Cruz also believes that the students have the power to change the country if they stand united against the government. This article relates to AP GoPo because it deals with the 1st amendment, more specifically though, our right to freedom of religion.
In my opinion I don't necessarily agree with the point that Ted Cruz was trying to get across to the students of Liberty University. I realize that some people do not believe in using contraceptives. However, not everyone is like that. Therefore, I think its okay to at least offer those who do believe in using contraceptives the ability to receive birth control. If you are one who doesn't believe in using contraceptives then you don't have to receive birth control. Its not like they're forcing you to take the birth control. Furthermore, I realize that certain businesses are going to be headed by people who don't belive in using contraceptives, and they will have to offer them to people anyways. However, like most things in life there are ways to try to get around it. For example, those businesses could use propaganda techniques inside their facilities to persuade people not to take birth control. Either way I think it is important for people to at least have the option of receiving birth control.
In the above article, the author writes about Ted Cruz encouraging students at a top Christian University to stand up for what they belive in and say no to parts of the Health Care Act. Ted Cruz is a Republican senator from Texas. On Wedneday he went to Liberty University in Virgina to speak to the student body. Cruz told them that it is their "responsibility to push back" against President Barak Obama and the Health Care Act that includes coverage for birth control. He believes that it is forcing businesses and religious groups to provide access to something that they may not be supportive of. Ted Cruz also believes that the students have the power to change the country if they stand united against the government. This article relates to AP GoPo because it deals with the 1st amendment, more specifically though, our right to freedom of religion.
In my opinion I don't necessarily agree with the point that Ted Cruz was trying to get across to the students of Liberty University. I realize that some people do not believe in using contraceptives. However, not everyone is like that. Therefore, I think its okay to at least offer those who do believe in using contraceptives the ability to receive birth control. If you are one who doesn't believe in using contraceptives then you don't have to receive birth control. Its not like they're forcing you to take the birth control. Furthermore, I realize that certain businesses are going to be headed by people who don't belive in using contraceptives, and they will have to offer them to people anyways. However, like most things in life there are ways to try to get around it. For example, those businesses could use propaganda techniques inside their facilities to persuade people not to take birth control. Either way I think it is important for people to at least have the option of receiving birth control.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Potential GOP candidates 2016 Presidential Election
Link to Article
This article talks mainly about four potential candidates for the Republican Party 2016 Presidential election. These four men are Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie. The four gentlemen met in Las Vegas for a four-day gatehring hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition. However, the focus of the article is not about these potential candidates and their viewpoints. Rather, the article is geared towards gainning support from a mega donor Sheldon Adleson. Adleson was a leader in financially supporting Newt Gringrich's presidential campaign in 2012. He advocated especially hard, spending more than $90 million, to defeat Obama in 2012. If any of these potential candidates are seen with Adleson's support it is a great advantage politically. Jeb Bush was first to arrive in Las Vegas and the Adleson's hosted a gala in their private Las Vegas airport hanger in his honor. This article relates to AP GoPo because it goes right along with campaign finance. These potential candidates, although they have money, need much more in order to get nationally recognized by the public. Therefore, they go to these meetings in hopes of persuading these mega donors to back them in their campaigns. Personally I think the whole idea of campaigns and strategically playing this "game" to get the most money for your campaign is so interesting. While it may not necessarily be the most ethically okay thing to do it is certaintly intriguing. It is esentially social darwinism; survival of the fittest. In this case however, "fittest" means whos got the most connections and money.
This article talks mainly about four potential candidates for the Republican Party 2016 Presidential election. These four men are Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Chris Christie. The four gentlemen met in Las Vegas for a four-day gatehring hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition. However, the focus of the article is not about these potential candidates and their viewpoints. Rather, the article is geared towards gainning support from a mega donor Sheldon Adleson. Adleson was a leader in financially supporting Newt Gringrich's presidential campaign in 2012. He advocated especially hard, spending more than $90 million, to defeat Obama in 2012. If any of these potential candidates are seen with Adleson's support it is a great advantage politically. Jeb Bush was first to arrive in Las Vegas and the Adleson's hosted a gala in their private Las Vegas airport hanger in his honor. This article relates to AP GoPo because it goes right along with campaign finance. These potential candidates, although they have money, need much more in order to get nationally recognized by the public. Therefore, they go to these meetings in hopes of persuading these mega donors to back them in their campaigns. Personally I think the whole idea of campaigns and strategically playing this "game" to get the most money for your campaign is so interesting. While it may not necessarily be the most ethically okay thing to do it is certaintly intriguing. It is esentially social darwinism; survival of the fittest. In this case however, "fittest" means whos got the most connections and money.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Health Law Concerns for Cancer Centers
Link to Article
This article is about the Aforable Care Act. It talks about how under the new health law, some of the most prestigous cancer centers will be off limits to cancer patients. There was a survey done by the Associated Press that only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP's survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their state exchange. According to the article, in order to keep premiums low, insurers must keep a narrow network of hospitals and doctors. It goes on to explain that by not including top cancer centers, insurers can cut costs. The article also makes a point to say that the challenges of this problem are going to become evident very soon. This article relates to APGoPo because it goes right along with the propaganda techniques we were talking about on Thursday. In this case I think it is safe to assume that this article is using card-stacking to attack the Affordable Care Act. No where in the article does it mention something positive about the new health laws.
In my opinion, its obvious that we would like for the top cancer centers to be open to cancer patients. That's just common sense and a no brainer. However, it is equally important to acknowlegde that under the Afordable Care Act patients with cancer are able to be insured. Prior to the ACA insurers could deny cancer patients any isurance at all. It might just be me, but that is just absurd. Of course if you're thinking about it in terms of money it seems logical. However, I would hope that human rights are more important than money. Furthermore, the article only offered stats on the 19 comprehensive cancer centers that responded but didn't tell the reader how many total comprehensive cancer centers there were. Therefore, its safe to assume that there may be more top cancer centers that are open to cancer patients than the article leads the reader to belive.
This article is about the Aforable Care Act. It talks about how under the new health law, some of the most prestigous cancer centers will be off limits to cancer patients. There was a survey done by the Associated Press that only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP's survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their state exchange. According to the article, in order to keep premiums low, insurers must keep a narrow network of hospitals and doctors. It goes on to explain that by not including top cancer centers, insurers can cut costs. The article also makes a point to say that the challenges of this problem are going to become evident very soon. This article relates to APGoPo because it goes right along with the propaganda techniques we were talking about on Thursday. In this case I think it is safe to assume that this article is using card-stacking to attack the Affordable Care Act. No where in the article does it mention something positive about the new health laws.
In my opinion, its obvious that we would like for the top cancer centers to be open to cancer patients. That's just common sense and a no brainer. However, it is equally important to acknowlegde that under the Afordable Care Act patients with cancer are able to be insured. Prior to the ACA insurers could deny cancer patients any isurance at all. It might just be me, but that is just absurd. Of course if you're thinking about it in terms of money it seems logical. However, I would hope that human rights are more important than money. Furthermore, the article only offered stats on the 19 comprehensive cancer centers that responded but didn't tell the reader how many total comprehensive cancer centers there were. Therefore, its safe to assume that there may be more top cancer centers that are open to cancer patients than the article leads the reader to belive.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Legally Recognize Non-Binary Genders
Link to Article
On the White House website citizens can make an account and start exploring the many wonders the website has to offer. One of these fantastic options users have is to start a petition. In this case someone started a petition to legally recognize non-binary genders. The article itself is just a petition, however, it does explain that on all legal documents American citizens are to identify as either female or male. In other countries like New Zealand and Australia they allow citizens to choose "X" gender if they do not identify with male or female. Also in the UK they recognize another gender, "Mx". This article relates to APGoPo because it demonstrates other ways of participating in government. We were recently talking about how voting is the number one way in the U.S. of participating in government, however, there are other ways to participate and this is one! Citizens can create their own petitions and by making an account you can sign the petition via computer. As the number of signers grows so does the attention it gets by the federal government.
In my opinion I think this petition is super rad and I hope it receives enough signatures to get the governments attention (I made and account and signed it, you should too!). I think it is important to have at lease one "other" option when identifying your gender. When I found this petition, I asked myself what even is gender? And through my pondering I realized I came up with two explanations. I believe that gender is both physical and mental. Mental gender to me is a perception of oneself, ones' expressions, and the roles they feel they need to fulfill. Physical gender to me is the persons behaviors, outward appearances, and the (as much as I hate to say it) cultural expectations of what is feminine or masculine. When I think about gender I don't take a persons sex into consideration. It is very possible to have a gender and sex that do not match. Sex to me refers to genitalia in which case it is easy to identify as female (vagina) or male (penis). However, it is not so easy when it comes to gender. Someone may have the sex of male but mentally identify as female. In which case, it becomes more important to have another option for identifying gender, besides the traditional male and female. This is just one example but there are many others. Personally, I'm not a fan of labels. I know they help to organize and classify however, they make things difficult. Which is another reason why I support this petition. The petition helps us to realize that there are more genders than you may think. I believe this petition getting enough signatures will be a fantastic start in changing the way society sees people and the world in general.
On the White House website citizens can make an account and start exploring the many wonders the website has to offer. One of these fantastic options users have is to start a petition. In this case someone started a petition to legally recognize non-binary genders. The article itself is just a petition, however, it does explain that on all legal documents American citizens are to identify as either female or male. In other countries like New Zealand and Australia they allow citizens to choose "X" gender if they do not identify with male or female. Also in the UK they recognize another gender, "Mx". This article relates to APGoPo because it demonstrates other ways of participating in government. We were recently talking about how voting is the number one way in the U.S. of participating in government, however, there are other ways to participate and this is one! Citizens can create their own petitions and by making an account you can sign the petition via computer. As the number of signers grows so does the attention it gets by the federal government.
In my opinion I think this petition is super rad and I hope it receives enough signatures to get the governments attention (I made and account and signed it, you should too!). I think it is important to have at lease one "other" option when identifying your gender. When I found this petition, I asked myself what even is gender? And through my pondering I realized I came up with two explanations. I believe that gender is both physical and mental. Mental gender to me is a perception of oneself, ones' expressions, and the roles they feel they need to fulfill. Physical gender to me is the persons behaviors, outward appearances, and the (as much as I hate to say it) cultural expectations of what is feminine or masculine. When I think about gender I don't take a persons sex into consideration. It is very possible to have a gender and sex that do not match. Sex to me refers to genitalia in which case it is easy to identify as female (vagina) or male (penis). However, it is not so easy when it comes to gender. Someone may have the sex of male but mentally identify as female. In which case, it becomes more important to have another option for identifying gender, besides the traditional male and female. This is just one example but there are many others. Personally, I'm not a fan of labels. I know they help to organize and classify however, they make things difficult. Which is another reason why I support this petition. The petition helps us to realize that there are more genders than you may think. I believe this petition getting enough signatures will be a fantastic start in changing the way society sees people and the world in general.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Personal Reflection
Religion has greatly influenced my values and beliefs. I used to be a devout Catholic, however, somewhere along the road there was a disconnect. I realized that I had been conditioned to believe certain things and frankly, they weren't my own opinions. Since then I've became more accepting of people and their beliefs. My family has generally been the same way. I was raised to believe things that they believed. I also realized that some of those beliefs were not my own. While I am in opposition to my family on some aspects like social issues, on other aspects I agree with them like on economic issues. I would say being female has definitely influenced my values and beliefs. I am for equal rights and equal pay for equal work despite gender. I don't really think region has influenced my values because I have moved around a lot and although I've lived in North Carolina I don't think its had a profound affect on my political beliefs and values. In addition, I don't really think my race has taken a toll on my beliefs. in everything we read it said Mexican Americans tend to vote Democrat and I don't necessarily fall in that category.
The three U.S. beliefs I will compare and contrast with my own are liberty, equality, and individualism, As a whole American citizens believe in having many rights as long as they don't infringe on others. I agree with this belief. The reason why is probably because I've learned to be open-minded and accepting of others opinions and views. The second believe that Americans hold is that everyone should have equal opportunities but not necessarily equal results. I also agree with this value. The reason I believe this is because I was always told that hard work can get you anywhere in life. This is why its important for everyone to have an equal opportunity. The final general belief of the American people is that the individuals rights are valued above the states and individual responsibility are strongly encouraged. This is the same as my personal belief. I think it is important for the people to have rights that are above the states in order for the states not to have too much power. In addition I have always been told if I wanted something I had to take the initiative and make it happen. No one else is going to do it for you, which is why individual responsibility should be encouraged.
The three U.S. beliefs I will compare and contrast with my own are liberty, equality, and individualism, As a whole American citizens believe in having many rights as long as they don't infringe on others. I agree with this belief. The reason why is probably because I've learned to be open-minded and accepting of others opinions and views. The second believe that Americans hold is that everyone should have equal opportunities but not necessarily equal results. I also agree with this value. The reason I believe this is because I was always told that hard work can get you anywhere in life. This is why its important for everyone to have an equal opportunity. The final general belief of the American people is that the individuals rights are valued above the states and individual responsibility are strongly encouraged. This is the same as my personal belief. I think it is important for the people to have rights that are above the states in order for the states not to have too much power. In addition I have always been told if I wanted something I had to take the initiative and make it happen. No one else is going to do it for you, which is why individual responsibility should be encouraged.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
San Diego Sea World Bill
Link to Article
In California a lawmaker, Richard Bloom proposed a bill called the Orca Welfare and Safety Act. Speculation about the killer whales treatment in captivity arose after the documentary "Blackfish" came out. The documentary examines killer whales' lives at Sea World. They focus mainly on one whale, Tilikum, who drowned one of the handlers. They think the reason behind the murder was emotional instability due to the lifestyle the whales live. The proposed legislation would stop the killer whales from doing any performances or entertainment events. They would only be allowed to be kept for research and rehabilitation. In addition to limiting human interactions the bill would also prevent captive breeding and prohibit orcas from being imported and exported in California. The only reason the killer whales would not all be released is because they would probably not be able to live in the wild after being captive for that long. Some of the former SeaWorld trainers agree with the proposed bill, however, some do not. Kyle Kittleson, said that 85% of the facts in "Blackfish" are untrue and that this bill is unnecessary. This article relates to APGoPo because it goes along with a persons political ideology. Some people may believe this is an important bill that needs to be passed, whereas others may think government has no need to intervene.
Personally I totally support this bill and I hope it gets passed. I have seen the documentary "blackfish" (and I recommend watching it), and although it does pull at your heart strings that is not my only reason for supporting this bill. I don't really agree with captivity of wildlife for any other purposes besides scientific research. It is sad that these killer whales are forced to be kept in extremely small spaces for their size. They only come out of their cages when they're training or performing. I think that this bill is important to open peoples' eyes. Recently it seems as though humans think they're the only ones living on this planet and we'd do anything to benefit ourselves. However, I think its time for a wake up call and we should start realizing that there are other living creatures on this planet and we should be considerate of that. The world shouldn't revolve around ourselves.
In California a lawmaker, Richard Bloom proposed a bill called the Orca Welfare and Safety Act. Speculation about the killer whales treatment in captivity arose after the documentary "Blackfish" came out. The documentary examines killer whales' lives at Sea World. They focus mainly on one whale, Tilikum, who drowned one of the handlers. They think the reason behind the murder was emotional instability due to the lifestyle the whales live. The proposed legislation would stop the killer whales from doing any performances or entertainment events. They would only be allowed to be kept for research and rehabilitation. In addition to limiting human interactions the bill would also prevent captive breeding and prohibit orcas from being imported and exported in California. The only reason the killer whales would not all be released is because they would probably not be able to live in the wild after being captive for that long. Some of the former SeaWorld trainers agree with the proposed bill, however, some do not. Kyle Kittleson, said that 85% of the facts in "Blackfish" are untrue and that this bill is unnecessary. This article relates to APGoPo because it goes along with a persons political ideology. Some people may believe this is an important bill that needs to be passed, whereas others may think government has no need to intervene.
Personally I totally support this bill and I hope it gets passed. I have seen the documentary "blackfish" (and I recommend watching it), and although it does pull at your heart strings that is not my only reason for supporting this bill. I don't really agree with captivity of wildlife for any other purposes besides scientific research. It is sad that these killer whales are forced to be kept in extremely small spaces for their size. They only come out of their cages when they're training or performing. I think that this bill is important to open peoples' eyes. Recently it seems as though humans think they're the only ones living on this planet and we'd do anything to benefit ourselves. However, I think its time for a wake up call and we should start realizing that there are other living creatures on this planet and we should be considerate of that. The world shouldn't revolve around ourselves.
Friday, February 28, 2014
My Brother's Keeper
Link to Article
"My Brother's Keeper" is a new initiative that President Obama has unveiled. This program focuses on helping young Black and Latino men with the challenges they face and to get them out of what Obama calls the "school-to-prison pipeline". In addition the intentions of this new program are to help put boys and young men of color on the path to opportunity and success. Obama will establish a "My Brother's Keeper Task Force" which will identify the best practices and how to expand upon them. Some of the areas that "My Brother's Keeper" will focus on is early childhood development, school readiness, literacy by third grade, and school discipline reform. Businesses have also pledged to aid in "My Brother's Keeper" by offering internships and designing school curricula to prepare these kids for jobs. In fact businesses have planned to invest around $200 million over five years in order to help men of color. Furthermore, this is not a program Obama intends on spending much if any government money on. He will not be putting any line items called "My Brother's Keeper" on 2015's fiscal budget. This relates to AP GoPo because it goes along with our political culture and the idea of "equal opportunity". As we've read in Chapter four, a majority of American's believe in equal opportunities. This is a perfect example; Obama believes that these young men of color need a 'boost' in order to have an equal opportunity. In this case that 'boost' is the My Brother's Keeper program.
Personally I have mixed feelings about this program. I understand wanting everyone to have equal opportunities, but there's a fine line between an equal opportunity and defeating the greater purpose. I think it is a wonderful concept and I also think its awesome that Obama has been able to get businesses to invest money into this program rather than spending government money. However, I do not really agree with the idea of focusing this program on young Black and Latino men. I feel like the "school-to-prison pipeline" is becoming an increasing problem for a variety of many adolescents; not just Blacks and Latinos. This to me seems similar to affirmative action. Which in essence seems like a good idea, but when you take a further look into it, it does more harm than good. In my opinion, aiming My Brother's Keeper exclusively at Black and Latino boys deviates from the bigger picture. In this case the bigger picture could be one of two things; becoming more competitive in the race for education or eliminating racial discrimination. In order to compete globally in the race for education and advancing technologies we have to progress as a whole society. This is why it seems more logical to have the program's intended audience to be America's youth as a whole rather then just a section of it. Additionally, we have had a long battle with racial discrimination in America. To me aiming My Brother's Keeper at young Black and Latino men specifically, draws more of a separation between the races than it would if the program was aimed at helping all of America's youth. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea but I wish it would have had a broader spectrum of possible participants.
"My Brother's Keeper" is a new initiative that President Obama has unveiled. This program focuses on helping young Black and Latino men with the challenges they face and to get them out of what Obama calls the "school-to-prison pipeline". In addition the intentions of this new program are to help put boys and young men of color on the path to opportunity and success. Obama will establish a "My Brother's Keeper Task Force" which will identify the best practices and how to expand upon them. Some of the areas that "My Brother's Keeper" will focus on is early childhood development, school readiness, literacy by third grade, and school discipline reform. Businesses have also pledged to aid in "My Brother's Keeper" by offering internships and designing school curricula to prepare these kids for jobs. In fact businesses have planned to invest around $200 million over five years in order to help men of color. Furthermore, this is not a program Obama intends on spending much if any government money on. He will not be putting any line items called "My Brother's Keeper" on 2015's fiscal budget. This relates to AP GoPo because it goes along with our political culture and the idea of "equal opportunity". As we've read in Chapter four, a majority of American's believe in equal opportunities. This is a perfect example; Obama believes that these young men of color need a 'boost' in order to have an equal opportunity. In this case that 'boost' is the My Brother's Keeper program.
Personally I have mixed feelings about this program. I understand wanting everyone to have equal opportunities, but there's a fine line between an equal opportunity and defeating the greater purpose. I think it is a wonderful concept and I also think its awesome that Obama has been able to get businesses to invest money into this program rather than spending government money. However, I do not really agree with the idea of focusing this program on young Black and Latino men. I feel like the "school-to-prison pipeline" is becoming an increasing problem for a variety of many adolescents; not just Blacks and Latinos. This to me seems similar to affirmative action. Which in essence seems like a good idea, but when you take a further look into it, it does more harm than good. In my opinion, aiming My Brother's Keeper exclusively at Black and Latino boys deviates from the bigger picture. In this case the bigger picture could be one of two things; becoming more competitive in the race for education or eliminating racial discrimination. In order to compete globally in the race for education and advancing technologies we have to progress as a whole society. This is why it seems more logical to have the program's intended audience to be America's youth as a whole rather then just a section of it. Additionally, we have had a long battle with racial discrimination in America. To me aiming My Brother's Keeper at young Black and Latino men specifically, draws more of a separation between the races than it would if the program was aimed at helping all of America's youth. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea but I wish it would have had a broader spectrum of possible participants.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Discrimination Bill passed in Arizona
Link to Article
Recently on Thursday February 20, 2014 Arizona's Legislature passed a bill that gives people the right to discriminate. The bill was constructed by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are a christian legal organization who were inspired by an incident that happened where a New Mexico wedding photographer was taken to court because he refused to shoot a same sex wedding. The bill protects businesses and religious institutions from discriminatory lawsuits if they can prove their actions were motivated by religious convictions. However, the issue is that this bill allows businesses to possibly discriminate against anyone. Not just Jews, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals, but potentially anyone. The bill now sits on Governor Jan Brewer's has five days to either sign or reject the bill.
To me this bill is insane. I understand that businesses have the right to conduct business with who they please. However, I'd like to think these businesses would use this right in cases where the customer was clearly detrimental to the business. Now if the only reason a business wasn't going to accommodate someone was because of who they are that's when it becomes completely outrages. Its obvious that people are going to have differing opinions, views, and religions. However, to not associate with someone based on the sole fact that they have a different religion or opinion than you is close-minded and quite frankly selfish. I don't understand why people have tolerance issues. Why can't we all just recognize that we have different views, and move on? Why are these different views constantly the determining the dynamics of the relationships we have with other people? Furthermore, this bill seems eerily similar to the beginnings of other human oppression incidents such as Jim Crow laws, Japanese-American Internment, and even the Holocaust. Absolutely ridiculous.
Recently on Thursday February 20, 2014 Arizona's Legislature passed a bill that gives people the right to discriminate. The bill was constructed by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are a christian legal organization who were inspired by an incident that happened where a New Mexico wedding photographer was taken to court because he refused to shoot a same sex wedding. The bill protects businesses and religious institutions from discriminatory lawsuits if they can prove their actions were motivated by religious convictions. However, the issue is that this bill allows businesses to possibly discriminate against anyone. Not just Jews, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals, but potentially anyone. The bill now sits on Governor Jan Brewer's has five days to either sign or reject the bill.
To me this bill is insane. I understand that businesses have the right to conduct business with who they please. However, I'd like to think these businesses would use this right in cases where the customer was clearly detrimental to the business. Now if the only reason a business wasn't going to accommodate someone was because of who they are that's when it becomes completely outrages. Its obvious that people are going to have differing opinions, views, and religions. However, to not associate with someone based on the sole fact that they have a different religion or opinion than you is close-minded and quite frankly selfish. I don't understand why people have tolerance issues. Why can't we all just recognize that we have different views, and move on? Why are these different views constantly the determining the dynamics of the relationships we have with other people? Furthermore, this bill seems eerily similar to the beginnings of other human oppression incidents such as Jim Crow laws, Japanese-American Internment, and even the Holocaust. Absolutely ridiculous.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Government Issues Rules to Bankers about Marijuana
Article Link
Marijuana has been quite the hot topic recently, especially since twenty states and the District of Columbia have now legalized the medical and/or recreational use of it. This news article is about the government issued rules for banks interested in serving legal marijuana businesses. Previously, banks have declined to work with legal marijuana businesses mainly because it is still illegal. While some states may have legalized its use, the production, sale, and possession of marijuana remain illegal under federal law. Coincidentally, we were recently talking about this in our AP Gov class; the supremacy clause and federal preemption. When federal and state laws conflict, federal laws reign supreme. For this reason, banks who conduct business with these marijuana dispensaries could suffer money penalties, withdrawal of FDIC insurance, and could even suffer being banned from working in the banking industry for life. As a result there are slim to no banks that want to do business with marijuana dealers. Consequently, this leaves those dispensaries to conduct an all-cash business which creates a tempting target for thieves. As a solution to this problem, the Treasury and Justice department have issued regulations geared at bringing the hidden marijuana business operations out from the shadows. These rules advise bankers to file a "marijuana limited" or a "marijuana priority" report based on whether the marijuana dealers are reputable or are conducting suspicious activity. In order for a dispensary to be reputable, they must be able to verify that they have a legal licence to sell marijuana. In addition, they must inform the bankers of the nature of their clientele and the types of products they sell. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, many bankers are still reluctant to dive into the marijuana business. Even so, they fear penalties and do not have full confidence considering this is just advise and not law. Bankers say they would feel more comfortable conducting business with legal marijuana dealers if congress passed a law that okay-ed it rather than the Justice and Treasury Departments giving them advise and rules.
In my opinion I agree with the bankers and believe it would be beneficial if congress passed a law that federally legalized the production, sale, and use (either medical or recreational or both) of marijuana. My belief is that there are many more good sides to marijuana than bad. To name a few, studies have shown that the use of marijuana has caused the rate at which tumorous cancer cells divide to slow down. In addition it is a pain reliever that can aid in taking away pain from many chronic diseases, as well as the nausea from chemotherapy. Furthermore marijuana has been shown to have potential therapeutic uses of many diseases ranging from Osteoporosis to Epilepsy, Alzheimer's and even Huntington's Disease. Not only does marijuana have medical benefits it also has the potential to bring in some big money. The government could put excise taxes on marijuana and tax the heck out of it, but also statistics show that marijuana if legalized could generate an estimated total of $12-$18 billion a year. As for the rules that the Justice and Treasury Departments put out for bankers, I think was a good attempt. However, I believe it will be an extremely slow process for bankers to become comfortable with doing business with these marijuana dispensaries if it isn't federally legalized. I think this is one of those things where you tired and made an effort but it didn't really have the intended results you would have like.
Other articles used:
link 1
link 2
Marijuana has been quite the hot topic recently, especially since twenty states and the District of Columbia have now legalized the medical and/or recreational use of it. This news article is about the government issued rules for banks interested in serving legal marijuana businesses. Previously, banks have declined to work with legal marijuana businesses mainly because it is still illegal. While some states may have legalized its use, the production, sale, and possession of marijuana remain illegal under federal law. Coincidentally, we were recently talking about this in our AP Gov class; the supremacy clause and federal preemption. When federal and state laws conflict, federal laws reign supreme. For this reason, banks who conduct business with these marijuana dispensaries could suffer money penalties, withdrawal of FDIC insurance, and could even suffer being banned from working in the banking industry for life. As a result there are slim to no banks that want to do business with marijuana dealers. Consequently, this leaves those dispensaries to conduct an all-cash business which creates a tempting target for thieves. As a solution to this problem, the Treasury and Justice department have issued regulations geared at bringing the hidden marijuana business operations out from the shadows. These rules advise bankers to file a "marijuana limited" or a "marijuana priority" report based on whether the marijuana dealers are reputable or are conducting suspicious activity. In order for a dispensary to be reputable, they must be able to verify that they have a legal licence to sell marijuana. In addition, they must inform the bankers of the nature of their clientele and the types of products they sell. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, many bankers are still reluctant to dive into the marijuana business. Even so, they fear penalties and do not have full confidence considering this is just advise and not law. Bankers say they would feel more comfortable conducting business with legal marijuana dealers if congress passed a law that okay-ed it rather than the Justice and Treasury Departments giving them advise and rules.
In my opinion I agree with the bankers and believe it would be beneficial if congress passed a law that federally legalized the production, sale, and use (either medical or recreational or both) of marijuana. My belief is that there are many more good sides to marijuana than bad. To name a few, studies have shown that the use of marijuana has caused the rate at which tumorous cancer cells divide to slow down. In addition it is a pain reliever that can aid in taking away pain from many chronic diseases, as well as the nausea from chemotherapy. Furthermore marijuana has been shown to have potential therapeutic uses of many diseases ranging from Osteoporosis to Epilepsy, Alzheimer's and even Huntington's Disease. Not only does marijuana have medical benefits it also has the potential to bring in some big money. The government could put excise taxes on marijuana and tax the heck out of it, but also statistics show that marijuana if legalized could generate an estimated total of $12-$18 billion a year. As for the rules that the Justice and Treasury Departments put out for bankers, I think was a good attempt. However, I believe it will be an extremely slow process for bankers to become comfortable with doing business with these marijuana dispensaries if it isn't federally legalized. I think this is one of those things where you tired and made an effort but it didn't really have the intended results you would have like.
Other articles used:
link 1
link 2
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Farm Bill passed by Senate
Both of these news articles were written about the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 or most commonly known as the Farm Bill. Every five years the Farm Bill is renewed with new provisions and policies. On Tuesday the Senate passed the bill with a 68-32 bipartisan vote. Major criteria listed in the Farm Bill include new regulations for subsidies farmers receive, cuts in food stamp programs, and a new office in the Agriculture Department. Previously, most farmers were given subsidies regardless of whether or not they grew crops. Although the House pushed for a five percent cut in food stamp programs, the final bill passed by the Senate compromised to lower the cuts to just one percent. Another new implication the bill proposed is the creation of a new office in the Agriculture Department. Cat fish would no longer be inspected by the FDA but rather by this new office due to the lack of resources needed to properly inspect the fish. Advocates for the bill said it will save us millions in the long run as well as the opportunity for big payoffs. However, opponents said the bill's saving plan could disappear if the weather or economy doesn't cooperate.
The passage of this bill by the Senate is directly related to the content we study in this class. It addresses political beliefs and the idea of political parties. In addition it gives insight into one of the institutions of the national government (Senate). Personally there are certain parts of the Farm Bill I enjoy and others that I don't. I agree with the subsidy regulation. If farmers are having a profitable year and making good money then there is no need to for the government to give the farmers more money. The aid that the government will give the farmers through the Farm Bill kicks in only when the farmers experience loss or a drop in prices. Furthermore, I agree with the cuts made to food stamp programs. Don't get me wrong I enjoy helping others but to a certain extent. The government has been helping people with low incomes through food stamps too much and it was a good decision to make those cuts. On the contrary, the new office in the Agriculture Department is a bit superfluous. Why spend $20 million on a whole new office instead of just equipping the FDA with the necessary resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)