http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/364378/november-03-2010/stephen-colbert-gives-you-props

This video talks about three propositions on state ballots that have been turned down in California (legalizing marijuana), Rhode Island (name shortening), and Oklahoma (banning sharia law).  The video is satirical because, 1) obviously, it reaches a large audience.  In the video, Stephen Colbert pretends to be in support of or against the decisions- the title says he gives them "props"*.  However, he is basically making fun of them by pointing out cerain details or by making weird comments.  For example, he states that lawmaking is being taken out of the hands of the lawmakers, or that the people are voting for a law that doesn't exist (sharia law).

*you've got to love puns

H.W. #2, Marking Period 2

The Electoral College is the organization that has the final say in the Presidential Election.  The vote is divided into the popular vote and electoral vote.  The Popular is the vote that citizens make.  The electoral vote is the vote that is given by electors.  The number of electors for each state is decided by the number of Senators plus the number of Representatives for that state.  Washington D.C. also recieves three electors.  In all but two states, all the electoral votes for that state go to the candidate that recieves the most votes.  A candidate needs to get the majority of the electoral votes (270 or more) in order to win the presidency.  Generally, the electoral votes mirror the popular vote, though there have been some cases where this hasn't happened.  I don't think that this is fair because it means that the voting system really isn't democratic.  The people aren't really voting for the President in this system.

Marking Period 2: HW #1

To become a law, a bill must first be proposed.  A commitee made up of a few Congressmen must review, edit, and approve the proposed bill before it can move on.  If it is approved by the commitee, then the bill moves to the House of Representatives to be edited and voted on.  If the House approves the bill, then it moves to the Senate to be edited and approved.

If the Senate approves the bill, then another commitee has to edit and approve the bill.  After that, both the HOuse and Senate must come together and vote on the bill.  If they approve the bill, then it goes to the President to be approved.  If approved, then the bill becomes a law.

Homework #13

Why is bag searching ACCORDING to the US Supreme Court legal, even though it seems to go against the 4th amendment? Do you agree or disagree with police stopping you and recording your name to a date base? DO you think this stops crime? Post your answers to your blog and write in complete sentences, no less then 8 sentences.

According to the Supreme Court, the bag searching is legal as long as there is a "clear and present danger".  I agree with this decision.  The Police are trying to keep the people safe by searching bags of people on the subway to prevent any potentially dangerous situations on the subways.  The bag searches are quick and random, so they don't waste anybody's time and can hardly be considered unreasonable.  I don't believe that the Police should be stopping people and recording their information.  Recording the personal information of people that are randomly stopped on the streets will not help to prevent crimes from happening. Doing so should really be considered an invasion of privacy and unreasonable.  Also, there is nothing stopping someone from exploiting that information that has been wrongly taken.

Homework #12

The Federal Government can declare war, coin money, regulate foreign and interstate commerce, make peace, provide for the common defense,  maintain armed services, and pass immigration and naturalization laws.  The State governments can provide public education, conduct elections, and create local governments.  Both the state and federal governments can collect taxes, make and enforce laws, and establish courts

Current Events #2

Topic: U.S. Politics
Article: Scary Monsters
Source: http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/04/scary-monsters

Summary: The article is trying to tell us about how government growth is affecting the people and the society.  It says that many government officials are focusing their attention on minor problems and details, such as the Ground Zero Mosque.  Many officials talk about how the Obama Administration is messing up and doing things wrong.  Yet they either can't or refuse to specifically state what they will do to solve the problems.  Finally, the article says that they should be focusing on how the government is hurting the economy and obstructing freedom, instead of focusing on the popularity contest that is the midterm elections. 

Reaction: I found it interesting that the government is focusing on the minor problems instead of the major ones.  I also found it interesting that, although many people aren't happy with the Obama Administration, they also arent very enthusiastic about Republican ideals either.  What really grabbed my attention were the last two sentences- "Some day that transition will come to government. But only after we insist on it." It makes me think that the people as a whole aren't really trying to make a change either.  It seems to me that both the government and the people are at fault here.

World Impact:  The decisions of the U.S. Government are vital to the economy.  Every little action has an effect on people in the longrun.  The fact that the government is not focusing on recovering the economy and protecting freedoms is causing many more problems for people.  Not only that, but it is causing support for the government to decrease as well.  As this problem persists, more and more people will ecome disillusioned with the government, which will cause more political trouble in the longrun.

Homework #11

Congress needs to amend the Constitution because, as the country grows and progresses, the needs of the citizens will change as well.  Over time, new problems or situations will arise that will require the law to change in order to maintain order.  The amendment procress was created in order to provide a way to allow that to happen.  The amendment process usually begins when a bill is proposed and apporved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and Congress. If the amendment is approved by the Congress, then it moves to the state legislatures.  Thre-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the amendment in order for it to become a law. 

Homework #10

I do believe that Federalism can be a good idea.  Although the country needs one central government, the fact is that different areas of the country require different needs.  Federalism allows the states in different locations of the country to enact laws that are better suited for the citizens that live there, while still maintaining one central government.  It also helps to regulate federal control over the people.

Current Events #2

Topic: U.S. Politics/economy
Article: A Lost and Volatile Decade
Source:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/?state=nwa  http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100925_2370.php

Summary: The article talks about how the economic problems of the country are causing political and social instability.  It states that the past decade has for many citizens been a series of mishaps.  It talks about how history seems to be repeating itself with this because something similar had happened during the Industrial Revolution, with the transition from farm to factory.  The article also talks about how the actions of past presidents have helped or harmed the economy, and helped set up what was to come.  Finally, it states that the government should expect to see more political instability until the economy stabilizes.

Reaction: Overall, I thought that I could really agree with the article.  In somes part of this article, I really wasn't too surprised by the information.  For example, it didn't surprise me that the economic situation was repeating itself or that the political instability was being caused by this.  There was some information that I found interesting.  For instance, I found it interesting that even before the recession, the number of people recieving health benefis from work had been steadily decreasing.

World Impact: This issue affects everyone in the United States because they are the ones that help decide who will be representing them in the government.  Every desicion made by the government is affecting them as well.  Our society is changing, and, though it has provided benefits, it has also provided porblems as well, which the citizens are hoping that the government will solve.  When the government doesn't deliver solutions to the problems, they what to change it in hopes that others will be able to provide solutions.  As such, the political instability is partly being caused by them. 

Homework #9

Write at least one paragraph on the following question:

Why was the US Constitution needed? what was the American government like before the Constitution? what problems did it solve?

The U.S. Constitution was needed to provide stability to the nation.  After gaining its independence from Great Britain in the American Revolution, the United States needed to form a central law and government.  However, the people feared that making the central government too strong would result in another king being formed.  As a result, the Articles of Confederation were formed.  However, the Articles of Confederation were far too weak to serve as the Supreme Law of the Land.  It gave far too much power to the states, and gave hardly any to the central government (there wasn't even a president or official court system).  The Articles of Confederation eventually fell apart and the Constitution was created in its place.  The Constitution gave the government more power, and balanced the power between different branches.  It also solved many of the issues between the people of different states, such as representation and taxes.

Homework #8

I don't believe that the colonists would have been able to work out an agreement with the king.  Many of the issues between the king and the colonists are related to taxation and treatment, and it seems that both sides would have their own reasons for refusing to cooperate.  From the king's perspective, it would seem that the actions of the government were justified.  The fact was that the colonies were being protected by Britain, and as such, they were under the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and king.  Because of that, the British Government would probably feel that it had every right to pass and enforce the laws that it created.  From the colonists' perspective, it would seem that the government's actions are unjustified.  The colonists felt that the government wasn't seeing things from their point of view.  The colonists were still citizens of Great Britain, and as such, they felt that the government should not have been randomly passing laws without representation from the colonial people.  Because of these two opposing viewpoints, I don't see how they would have been able to come to a agreement.

Homework #7

There is no way for a direct democracy to work in the United States.  The United States is one of the most populated countries in the world.  In a direct democracy, every citizen is literally part of the the government.  With so many people giving so many different opinions, there would be no way to efficiently run the government.  A direct democracy would really only cause more chaos.  I feel that a representative government is working moderately well for this country because it allows important matters to be solved more quickly and efficiently (in most cases).  I don't think we can really make a perfect government because, just like how people have flaws, there will always be some problems that can't be solved.

Current Events #1

Topic: The U.S. Economy
Article Title: The Era of Expert Failure
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/15/the_era_of_expert_failure_107170.html

Summary: The main point of the article is that the government is relying too much on individual experts to try to fix the economy.  It states that there is no way for specific individuals to predict exactly how to fix the economy because it is far too complex for specific individuals to fix.  It goes on to say that government officials tend to hire experts that promise results, but don't follow through with their promises.  It also states the assumptions of these "experts" are prone to failure, which causes more problems because mistakes made by government experts affect many people and are difficult to fix.  The article says that the biggest problem is that the power to change is concentrated in individuals, while the knowledge needed is widespread and divided.  The author says that giving power to specific individuals hired by the government isn't the answer.  Instead, the article states that experts not being sponsored by the government, such as experts in business and nonprofit institutions, should be searching for solutions.

Reaction: I don't think that it is a bad thing to be consulting with experts.  I think that part of the problem is that, as the article said, part of the problem is that the government is relying too much on specific experts to fix the problems of a complex economy.  The article states that private-sector experts should be working towards a solution, but I don't think that is enough.  As the article said, the knowledge needed is spread out and divided.  Because of that, I think that we should "widen the net" to include others that might have some needed insight, such as university students.

World Impact: This event can impact the rest of the world because the U.S. economy is intertwined with the economies of other countries as well.  The U.S. is a major economic power in the world.  Billions of dollars are traded everyday throughout the world.  The decisions of these experts being hired by the government will ultimately affect the rest of the world in the long run.  As such, if something major were to upset to the economy (like a depression for example), the rest of the world would be hurt as well. 

Homework #6

John Locke believed that that all people are born good, with natural rights that can't be taken away from you.  He thought that a government could only exist with the consent of the people being governed, and believed in the principle of separation of powers in a government.  Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that people are naturally evil.  He thought that only a government that had a ruler with absolute power could maintain control.  I personally believe that John Locke's principles apply the concept of social contract more effectively than Thomas Hobbes's principles.  Thomas Hobbes believes that people should give the government absolute power, but if you focus all of the power in one person, then there is really nothing stopping that person from abusing their power.  John Locke's belief that the power should be split into separate parts chosen by the people helps to avoid that problem.

Homework #5

Questions: 1. Why do people obey laws?
2. Do you trust the government?
3. What would you change?

    People generally obey laws to help maintain order in their society.  Our laws are meant to ensure the safety of the people by providing set regulations to limit unruliness.  At the same time, they are meant to protect the rights of the people to ensure that they aren't taken advantage of by the government.  Laws also allow for justice to be served to those that commit crimes or try to abuse the law.

    For the most part, I feel that we should not completely depend on our government.  The politicians in the highest offices of the government have always been at odds with each other- now more than ever.  Because of that, these politicians are constantly clashing over how to lead the country, which usually ends in a deadlock between them, and prevents them from making any real progress in the government.  If I could change the government, the main thing I would change is the Supreme Court.  I believe that We shouldn't have Supreme Court justices keep their positions for life.  Our society changes over time, and we need justices that reflect that change, instead of ones that have grown up in a different time, with different situations.