http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=d77da2e3-1b78-be3e-e0f3-4334ab06b8e7&Month=1&Year=2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thank you, President Bush
My former boss, Senator Orrin Hatch, paid tribute to President Bush on the floor of the Senate last week. No matter how you feel about the soon-to-be-former president, this statement speaks extremely well to how President Bush served our country. Enjoy!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Hillary Clinton as the Next Secretary of State
Barack Obama announced his new National Security team. It is anchored by none other than his chief rival and former presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton. Many view this as a very savvy choice for Sec. of State as the Clintons enjoy a good rapport around the world. Yet, others are skeptical about the choice. Some think it is too soon for the Clintons to have that much power again.
What do you think?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Open Blog
Blog on anything you want to. Remember, if you have 15 or more posts, you get full credit.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Unemployment
During this time of want and woe, a lot of people are losing their jobs. Unemployment insurance serves a lot of purposes, the largest of which is to help keep people on their feet long enough to get their next job.
Is that right?
Is it smart for the government to assist unemployed members of the workforce?
Who should qualify for unemployment benefits?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Should the government buy-out GM?
Democrats want to bail-out GM to "save 3 million jobs." Republicans are tired of giving a blank check to Hank Paulson and are even more weary of spending money on giving corporations financial breaks that they don't deserve.
If you were in Congress, what would you do and why?
If you were in Congress, what would you do and why?
Early Foreign Policy: Native Americans
When Europeans came to the Americas, they immediately had to engage in foreign policy with the Natives who inhabited this land. For the first few centuries, the white man was a scourge upon native populations and considered them as sub-human. Now, many Native Americans and Hawaiians live in squalor and the US government does very little to support these early inhabitants of "our country."
What do you think of the way Native Americans were and are treated by the US government? If you are interested, watch this program about the Navajo Reservation: http://www.hulu.com/watch/26682/30-days-life-on-an-indian-reservation
What do you think of the way Native Americans were and are treated by the US government? If you are interested, watch this program about the Navajo Reservation: http://www.hulu.com/watch/26682/30-days-life-on-an-indian-reservation
Thursday, November 13, 2008
What Constitutes a Civil Right?
For the past two weeks, we have been discussing the controversy of giving LGTB people the civil right to marry members of the same sex. What is at the heart of this issue is defining what a civil right is.
Is it someone's civil right to marry whomever that person chooses regardless of sex?
Or is marrying someone of the same sex a special right reserved for a very small group of our population?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Time for Tolerance to Go Both Ways
You guys have challenged me. Way to go!
I've been trying to figure out how I feel about this whole gay marriage thing. I realize my last post on the topic -- whether or not the LGBT community merits "civil rights" -- was, at best, murky. The reason why it was murky was because I'm still trying to work this whole thing out in my mind. Like I said in class, my worst fault is that I can see both sides of the issue. It would be a lot easier to be like Jill and Amanda or ZZ Nuge and Trevor and be completely set about the issue. But, I'm not. So, I continue to labor through this tough issue.
I do think I have made a breakthrough, though. I no longer have a pit in my stomach when I think about the balance between preserving traditional marriage and awarding a very vocal minority group civil rights when I don't think they even qualify for them.
My biggest concern about this issue really has nothing to do with defining marriage or figuring out the biological make-up of a homosexual's brain and/or psyche. My biggest concern is all about tolerance.
I have been greatly troubled by the aggressive animosity directed towards religious people by the opponents to Proposition 8. Protestors often carry signs that read, "Say No to H8" or "Proposition 8 is All about Hate." The notion that I and other religious people "hate" homosexuals is tremendously offensive and just untrue. My support of Proposition 8 has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about the LGBT community. I know I certainly do not hate them. They have their freedom to choose their lifestyle just as I do. What bothers me is that opponents to Proposition 8 think that those who are supportive of it are bigots and hate-mongers. That's like comparing an orange to a Buick -- they're not even in the same ballpark.
My support on 8 absolutely has to do with my very personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. A healthy family where mother and father are co-equals in the home and provide a loving and nurturing environment for their children is quite literally the fabric of our society. Mother has certain talents, abilities, and natural roles that fathers simply do not have; and fathers have complimentary talents, abilities, and natural roles that mothers don't have.
For those of you who think I'm a bigot and a hypocrite, that's your problem. I know I'm not. There is zero hate in my heart towards anyone who is gay because they are gay. I gotta say, though, this whole religion-bashing thing doesn't win them any points. It's time for tolerance to go both ways.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Who Voted for Proposition 8? (From Ben)
I've been reading up on how Prop 8 managed to pass in an overwhelmingly liberal state like California, and it seems as though it was more an issue of black and Latino Californian Democrats turning out overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8 than any specific influence by the Mormon Church. After all, it's unlikely black and Latinos Democrats in California take any cues from the Mormon Church, as opposed to their own.
As you can see, exit polls show white Californians voted 51% against Prop 8, while 70% of blacks and 53% of Latinos voted for it:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
There seems to be a growing undercurrent of strife and division within the now-majority Democratic coalition on social issues. The benefits that new black and Latino voters have given the Dems on a national scale could be short lived.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/work_to_do.php
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/on-homophobia-and-racism.html
Hope you find this of interest as much as I did...
As you can see, exit polls show white Californians voted 51% against Prop 8, while 70% of blacks and 53% of Latinos voted for it:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1
There seems to be a growing undercurrent of strife and division within the now-majority Democratic coalition on social issues. The benefits that new black and Latino voters have given the Dems on a national scale could be short lived.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/work_to_do.php
http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/on-homophobia-and-racism.html
Hope you find this of interest as much as I did...
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
California's Proposition 8: Is Homosexuality a Civil Right?
Civil liberties are tricky things. What constitutes a civil liberty? Is it something we're born with? Can we pick and chose which civil liberties to have? As we discussed in class, my point of view is that for something to be elevated to the level of a civil liberty it must be inherent in the individual. In other words, you must be born that way or prove that you are a member of that culture.
Homosexuality, in my opinion, does not pass the civil liberty test. Although I am good friends with several people who were clearly gay since birth, I am still extremely skeptical about the general consensus that all homosexuals are born gay. Because one of my college roommates and best friends is gay, I really have given a lot of thought. (I even examined my own sexuality to make sure I was straight. I am.)
What I have found is that not all homosexuals choose to be gay and not all homosexuals are born gay. That to me is the biggest issue at stake here. When something cannot be empirically proven, such as race, a commitment to a religious group, or the ability to make decisions for yourself, then it really has no business rising to the level of a civil liberty. And, if it cannot be qualified as a civil liberty, then how can we consider affording that group of people civil rights protected by the Constitution?
Therefore, banning same-sex marriage is the right thing. Homosexuality and its corresponding cultures are not inherent in ALL homosexuals.
It is critical, however, to never be guilty of hate, homophobia, religious bigotry, racism, and their many ugly cousins. We must accept each other as individuals that contribute to a great whole.
One more thing...I know tonight's discussion got heated. Thank goodness. If it didn't I'd be really worried that you weren't paying attention.
I would like to thank you all for your opinions. I respect them and I respect your right to have them, even if we disagree.
That being said, I apologize if any of you felt that I didn't respect your opinions. That will never happen. You may think that I don't respect your views. Not so. It's just that I think your views are wrong and mine are right. But, I still respect your views.
That's how the political world works. You will be offended from time to time. Sometimes you'll even get so pissed off and that you'll want to walk out or better yet, punch your opponent in the nose. Resist that urge. It only gets you in trouble.
Honest and open debate is the only way to go -- challenging your own beliefs to see if you still believe that way. If you do, good for you. Keep on fighting that fight. If you change your mind, great. You then can go a different way.
What do you all think about Californians' decision to ban same-sex marriage?
President Barack Obama: Great President or Greatest President?
As an open-minded moderate Conservative , I'm anxious to see what President-Elect Obama does in his first 100 days as the 44th president of the United States of America. Yes, I voted for his opponent because I am wary of his economic and social agenda. However, his unifying message resonates with me. I'd like to have him earn my support.
How will he earn my support? By governing from the middle and not allowing ultra-wingers like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and the like dictate to him how the country should be run. I'd like to see Colin Powell be offered an appointment in his cabinet. I'd like to see him curtail government spending, not by simply spending less on current programs but by cutting programs that are ineffective and no longer serve their purpose. Yes, I would love to see him as the restored beacon of common-sense and hope, President Mitchell. (For those of you who don't know that obscure reference, Mitchell was the fictional president in the movie "Dave").
He will lose my willingness to support him if he goes down the road of Schumer, Pelosi, and Reed by limiting free speech with the Fairness Doctrine, redefining the "mainstream" as someone who is tolerant of everything and someone who stands for nothing, and entering into massive entitlement programs with government-sponsored universal health care.
Now, it's your turn to sound off. What will make you support Pres.-Elect Obama? What will make you surrender your support?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Which side of the brain should you vote with? (Ben)
A friend of mine and I were talking a few weeks ago about whether or not he should vote for Ralph Nader in this coming election. His main reason for doing so was that he felt that he could not necessarily trust Obama to be a positive change to this country, that he was just talk. My friend then stated that if he voted for Nader, he could not only vote for someone he trusted and respected, but he could be sure that (since Nader is guaranteed not to win this election) his vote would not contribute this country going further down the tubes.
I found it very interesting that someone was specifically willing to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning *for that reason*. Voting for Nader allowed my friend to both a) make a personal statement of dissatisfaction with the modern two-party system and b) not give his vote any actual significance, pre-emptively washing his hands clean of any guilt his vote might cause. In a sense, voting for Ralph Nader became his way of doing the cliched "writing in 'Donald Duck'" vote but in a serious way.
It's an extremely "right brain" way of looking at elections. The kind of voters we most hear about are the "left brain" voters, the ones who analyze candidate's positions, character, backgrounds, records, speeches and campaign messages to see who, if anyone, best fits their worldview. Sometimes they are passionate about a candidate, sometimes they are not. Usually, no candidate has a 100% match to any voter's personal positions, often not even an 80%+ match. In traditional left brain thinking, undecided voters tend to rationalize their final choices based on party affiliations, if the candidates' records aren't enough. Left brain voters usually come around to the two-party system, for better or for worse, because they want their vote to directly impact the election.
We often don't hear about "right brain" voters, and I think that's because those voters wind up either associating with third parties, writing in protest votes, or not voting at all. They are conceding that their vote won't affect the outcome in any presidential election, but are willing to do so for emotional or moral reasons, rather than rational or logical reasons. They would rather vote for who their conscience tells them to, even if there's no chance they will win.
There are many reasons to vote for anyone not named Obama or McCain this election. There are even more reasons not to vote for the GOP/Dems on a local level. But I think this election, in particular, best combines the two sides of the brain and makes voting for a candidate a chance to make a statement AND a practical exercise. A vote for Obama, for instance, is a practical vote for a Democrat, but also a protest vote against the last 8 years of Bush/GOP rule. When I told my friend this, he felt more comfortable voting for Obama.
I would also say to anyone thinking of voting for Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or any other third party right-wing candidate to vote for McCain, for similar reasons. But is this the right election to "sit out" by voting for anyone else other than McCain/Obama, for whatever reason? Should someone ever consider a vote for McCain/Obama a "concession" if they like neither? I'd have to say no, but maybe others differ...
I found it very interesting that someone was specifically willing to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning *for that reason*. Voting for Nader allowed my friend to both a) make a personal statement of dissatisfaction with the modern two-party system and b) not give his vote any actual significance, pre-emptively washing his hands clean of any guilt his vote might cause. In a sense, voting for Ralph Nader became his way of doing the cliched "writing in 'Donald Duck'" vote but in a serious way.
It's an extremely "right brain" way of looking at elections. The kind of voters we most hear about are the "left brain" voters, the ones who analyze candidate's positions, character, backgrounds, records, speeches and campaign messages to see who, if anyone, best fits their worldview. Sometimes they are passionate about a candidate, sometimes they are not. Usually, no candidate has a 100% match to any voter's personal positions, often not even an 80%+ match. In traditional left brain thinking, undecided voters tend to rationalize their final choices based on party affiliations, if the candidates' records aren't enough. Left brain voters usually come around to the two-party system, for better or for worse, because they want their vote to directly impact the election.
We often don't hear about "right brain" voters, and I think that's because those voters wind up either associating with third parties, writing in protest votes, or not voting at all. They are conceding that their vote won't affect the outcome in any presidential election, but are willing to do so for emotional or moral reasons, rather than rational or logical reasons. They would rather vote for who their conscience tells them to, even if there's no chance they will win.
There are many reasons to vote for anyone not named Obama or McCain this election. There are even more reasons not to vote for the GOP/Dems on a local level. But I think this election, in particular, best combines the two sides of the brain and makes voting for a candidate a chance to make a statement AND a practical exercise. A vote for Obama, for instance, is a practical vote for a Democrat, but also a protest vote against the last 8 years of Bush/GOP rule. When I told my friend this, he felt more comfortable voting for Obama.
I would also say to anyone thinking of voting for Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or any other third party right-wing candidate to vote for McCain, for similar reasons. But is this the right election to "sit out" by voting for anyone else other than McCain/Obama, for whatever reason? Should someone ever consider a vote for McCain/Obama a "concession" if they like neither? I'd have to say no, but maybe others differ...
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Are Lobbyists Good for America?
In this presidential election we have heard a lot of bad things about lobbyists. Both McCain and Obama decry "special interest" groups and lobbyists as wolves in the henhouse. Yet, if it weren't for these groups, certain legislation would never be passed because the information cost of getting all of the facts would be extremely high. Plus, there are so many coalitions around the country that represent millions of Americans who cannot speak individually to their representatives.
Should lobbying be outlawed? Would that help or hurt the legislative and appropriating processes?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Is homosexuality a civil rights issue?
Many people say that homosexuality is a civil rights issue. Others strongly disagree claiming that homosexuals do not deserve special rights and that it is not a civil rights issue.
What do you think?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
West High School and the Freedom of Religion
When I was a Junior at West High School in Salt Lake City, I sang in the A'Capella and Chorale Choirs. As many choirs do, we sang Christmas songs at Christmas time and tradition to sing a song called "Friends" at graduation.
That year, a sophomore girl objected to singing these songs because she was Jewish. She proceeded to file lawsuits against the choir, the conductor, the school, and the district attempting to prohibit the choir from singing these songs.
Those of us who experienced this knew the whole story -- that it was more a ploy of her hot-tempered father to get attention and possibly some money more than a sincere concern of hers.
The linked article appeared on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour in 1995. Read it and post your reactions.
Mainstream Media vs. Sarah Palin
Is the mainstream media ganging up against Sarah Palin?
When not filtered by the media's producers and politics, does Palin resonate with you?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Bailout Package
Yesterday, Congress unsuccessfully tried to pass a multi-billion dollar piece of legislation yesterday. There was bi-partisan support for the bill. Yet, there was more bi-partisan support to oppose it.
Why did it not pass?
Why did some (95) Democrats object to this bill?
Why did most Republicans (133) oppose it?
What is the next step?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
George W. Bush: Great President or the Greatest President?
According to www.pollingpoint.com, GWB is running at about a 28% approval rating - not bad from where he was a few months ago. Yet, the fifth most beloved president, Harry S. Truman (my alma mater's namesake) was in the gutter with the public for most of his presidency.
Will history view George W. Bush more kindly than the public views him now? What factors will be included when analyzing his presidency?
Will history view George W. Bush more kindly than the public views him now? What factors will be included when analyzing his presidency?
Class Choice for Chief Legislator: McCain
Was the class correct by choosing Obama as the best choice for Chief Legislator?
Why?
Why not?
Why?
Why not?
Class Choice for Chief Diplomat: Obama
Was the class correct by choosing Obama as the best choice for Chief Diplomat?
Why?
Why not?
Why?
Why not?
Class Choice for Commander in Chief: McCain
Was the class correct in choosing McCain as the better Commander-in-Chief?
Why?
Why not?
Why?
Why not?
Bureaucracy: An Extension of Presidential Power
As we learned tonight from VP Mason Bishop and from the power point presentation, the American Bureaucracy is an extension of presidential power. When we elect a president, we elect an administration of over 2,000 new federal employees, who have ideas of their own.
How will the notion of the president choosing his own administration affect your vote this November?
How will the notion of the president choosing his own administration affect your vote this November?
Group Project: The Science of Campaigning
As Americans, we consider ourselves optimistic people, and we often prefer our politics to follow suit. We decry "partisan mudslinging" and yearn for a new kind of politics. However, in the 230+ year history of this country, politics has always been a vicious game, what Bill Clinton once termed a "contact sport", and the successes of negative politics have been both numerous and infamous. With increases in technology and psychology, the ability to pinpoint the id of the average voter has allowed politicians and their campaigns to fine-tune identity, fears and mistrust into a winning voting strategy that often sidesteps controversy. Is this "science" really as successful as history suggests? And if so, what does it say about the average American voter, and the American government as a whole, that negative politics keep working even as we lament them?
Group Project: Importance of the Electoral College
Chad Johnson
Amy Deem
Matt Stratton
Jeff Turner
POLS 1100
Group Project
Evolution & Evaluation of the
Electoral College
This is an exciting year to be in a political science classroom. As we draw closer to November 4th we will be hearing more and more about the Electoral College and its role in this historical election. As our group thought about this we came up with a few questions which prompted us to use the Electoral College as a topic for our group presentation.
The points we decided to research are as follows:
• Why was the Electoral College established in the first place
• How was it originally set up and what was its role/responsibility
• How has it been changed or modified over the years
• How it works today
• What are the benefits of having such a system and
• What are the downsides/disadvantages of the Electoral College
Our goal is not only to educate ourselves and fellow classmates about how the Electoral College functions but also the impact that it has had and will have on elections. The questions/subtopics listed above may be subject to change based the findings of our research.
Amy Deem
Matt Stratton
Jeff Turner
POLS 1100
Group Project
Evolution & Evaluation of the
Electoral College
This is an exciting year to be in a political science classroom. As we draw closer to November 4th we will be hearing more and more about the Electoral College and its role in this historical election. As our group thought about this we came up with a few questions which prompted us to use the Electoral College as a topic for our group presentation.
The points we decided to research are as follows:
• Why was the Electoral College established in the first place
• How was it originally set up and what was its role/responsibility
• How has it been changed or modified over the years
• How it works today
• What are the benefits of having such a system and
• What are the downsides/disadvantages of the Electoral College
Our goal is not only to educate ourselves and fellow classmates about how the Electoral College functions but also the impact that it has had and will have on elections. The questions/subtopics listed above may be subject to change based the findings of our research.
Group Project: History of Government and its Influence on US Government
POLS 1100
Project Synopsis
What were some ancient and contemporary influences on the founding fathers, and how
do we differ from some of their ideas?
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I
know of no way of judging of the future, but by the past” –Patrick Henry
Ancient Influences and Governments
Where did the founding fathers get their ideas from? They knew history, especially
Greek and Roman, as well as Judeo-Christian. They were “Classically Educated,”
which at the time meant a thorough grounding in Greek and Latin.
• Athenian Democracy
o Pierce Butler (Philadelphia Convention), “We must follow the example of
Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best government he could devise,
but the best they would receive.”
o Aristotle, Solon
o Why does direct democracy not work? What led to the fall of Athens?
• Roman Republic
o Plato’s Republic
o Why are we not a republic? Weaknesses of a republic: Caeser, voice of
people
• Israelite System, 1000 BC
o People’s Law instead of Ruler’s Law, Moses’ change
• Anglo-Saxon Government, 400 AD
o Commonwealth of Freemen
o Representative government
Contemporary Influences
• Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, who was there, what did they believe?
• Age of Enlightenment (Reason)
o Questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals
o John Locke – Second Treatise on Government, “life, liberty, and the
protection of property rights”
o Baron Montesquieu – Spirit of the Laws
• Federalist Papers
o No 47: separation of powers “no political truth is certainly of greater
intrinsic value”
• John Adams, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
• Ben Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
• Samuel Adams, “Neither the wisest Constitution, nor the wisest laws, will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
Researchers
• -Ezra Taft Benson
• -Cleon Skousen
Philosophers
• Plato, The Republic
• John Locke, Two Treatises on Government
Founding Fathers to look into
• -John Adams, Thoughts on Government
• -Thomas Jefferson
o freedom formula came from the Bible
• -James Madison
Our founding fathers believed in moral standards, and based the Constitution on this.
Everything in our constitution that came into force through consent of the people came
from Exodus
Death Penalty was used for murder and treason
When the time came for the United States of America to adopt a Constitution, our fore
fathers modeled it after the perfect Israelite system of administration.
Classical Education – latin and greek
-Virgil, Horace, Justinian, Nepos, Caesar, Tacitus, Lucretius, Eutropius, Phaedrus,
Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato
-John Taylor, John Tyler, George Rogers Clark, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson,
Alexander Hamilton
Jefferson knew his Greek, Adams preferred Latin
www.memeoriapress.com/articles/founding-fathers.html
Separation of Power
www.mlloyd.org/mdl-indx/polybius/intro.htm
Project Synopsis
What were some ancient and contemporary influences on the founding fathers, and how
do we differ from some of their ideas?
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I
know of no way of judging of the future, but by the past” –Patrick Henry
Ancient Influences and Governments
Where did the founding fathers get their ideas from? They knew history, especially
Greek and Roman, as well as Judeo-Christian. They were “Classically Educated,”
which at the time meant a thorough grounding in Greek and Latin.
• Athenian Democracy
o Pierce Butler (Philadelphia Convention), “We must follow the example of
Solon, who gave the Athenians not the best government he could devise,
but the best they would receive.”
o Aristotle, Solon
o Why does direct democracy not work? What led to the fall of Athens?
• Roman Republic
o Plato’s Republic
o Why are we not a republic? Weaknesses of a republic: Caeser, voice of
people
• Israelite System, 1000 BC
o People’s Law instead of Ruler’s Law, Moses’ change
• Anglo-Saxon Government, 400 AD
o Commonwealth of Freemen
o Representative government
Contemporary Influences
• Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, who was there, what did they believe?
• Age of Enlightenment (Reason)
o Questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals
o John Locke – Second Treatise on Government, “life, liberty, and the
protection of property rights”
o Baron Montesquieu – Spirit of the Laws
• Federalist Papers
o No 47: separation of powers “no political truth is certainly of greater
intrinsic value”
• John Adams, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
• Ben Franklin, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
• Samuel Adams, “Neither the wisest Constitution, nor the wisest laws, will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”
Researchers
• -Ezra Taft Benson
• -Cleon Skousen
Philosophers
• Plato, The Republic
• John Locke, Two Treatises on Government
Founding Fathers to look into
• -John Adams, Thoughts on Government
• -Thomas Jefferson
o freedom formula came from the Bible
• -James Madison
Our founding fathers believed in moral standards, and based the Constitution on this.
Everything in our constitution that came into force through consent of the people came
from Exodus
Death Penalty was used for murder and treason
When the time came for the United States of America to adopt a Constitution, our fore
fathers modeled it after the perfect Israelite system of administration.
Classical Education – latin and greek
-Virgil, Horace, Justinian, Nepos, Caesar, Tacitus, Lucretius, Eutropius, Phaedrus,
Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato
-John Taylor, John Tyler, George Rogers Clark, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson,
Alexander Hamilton
Jefferson knew his Greek, Adams preferred Latin
www.memeoriapress.com/articles/founding-fathers.html
Separation of Power
www.mlloyd.org/mdl-indx/polybius/intro.htm
Group Project: History of Political Parties
Our group, made up of Amanda Empey, Ira Freeman, Jonathan Metzler, Heather, and Avi, have decided to study political parties in the United States, starting with the Federalist Party in 1789. We plan to touch on the political parties that most influenced our current predominate political parties. We have broken up the last 200 years into segments, and each member of our group will explain the main parties of each time, why they were important, and how they have influenced the political spectrum today.
We also plan to touch on some of the current political parties that are active today, but may not get much attention due to our dual-party system. For example, we all expressed interest in learning more about the Green Party, the Independent party, and the Libertarian Party.
This is a timely topic, due to the upcoming elections, but we also thought that it was important to learn more about the history behind political parties so we could learn more about how they may evolve in the future. We also thought that it was important to be exposed to ideas that may not get as much airtime.
We also plan to touch on some of the current political parties that are active today, but may not get much attention due to our dual-party system. For example, we all expressed interest in learning more about the Green Party, the Independent party, and the Libertarian Party.
This is a timely topic, due to the upcoming elections, but we also thought that it was important to learn more about the history behind political parties so we could learn more about how they may evolve in the future. We also thought that it was important to be exposed to ideas that may not get as much airtime.
Fifth Grader Suspended for Wearing Anti-Obama Shirt
“FIFTH GRADER SUSPENDED FOR WEARING ANTI-OBAMA SHIRT ” (from Dan Quinney)
Link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/fifth-grader-suspended-for-wearing-anti-obama-shirt/
In many ways, I’d like to say I felt shocked that the school would do this; but then, I’m not really surprised. I remember in school that there were dress codes in place which kept offensive material from being displayed. But I also remember that many of my most outspoken teachers were extremely liberal and would have been the first to kick out anyone doing something they disagreed with. I wonder what would have happened if he had been wearing something anti-McCain. Would they still have suspended him?
During election times, we get so carried away in the shock-factor or fighting dirty, we forget that the more we do this, the more separated we become. This may sound shocking to hear from someone who supports McCain, but I think the kid went a little too far on this. This isn’t conservatism; it’s radicalism, which can only further polarize our nation, no matter which side it comes from. United we stand, divided we fall.
Link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/fifth-grader-suspended-for-wearing-anti-obama-shirt/
In many ways, I’d like to say I felt shocked that the school would do this; but then, I’m not really surprised. I remember in school that there were dress codes in place which kept offensive material from being displayed. But I also remember that many of my most outspoken teachers were extremely liberal and would have been the first to kick out anyone doing something they disagreed with. I wonder what would have happened if he had been wearing something anti-McCain. Would they still have suspended him?
During election times, we get so carried away in the shock-factor or fighting dirty, we forget that the more we do this, the more separated we become. This may sound shocking to hear from someone who supports McCain, but I think the kid went a little too far on this. This isn’t conservatism; it’s radicalism, which can only further polarize our nation, no matter which side it comes from. United we stand, divided we fall.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Another Check on the Judiciary
One check on the Judiciary that was over-looked is the Judiciary itself. Circuit Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court are made up of numerous judges with different legal views on certain issues. These judges rule independently of one another, but they hear the cases together. One justice's opinion in favor of an action can nullify another justice's opinion that is opposed to the action.
Is this another check on judicial powers? Is the appeal process a check on judicial power?
The Effectiveness of the Appeals System
Tonight, we talked about the Death Penalty and whether it is a good thing or not. There were a lot of different opinions - some opposed and some in favor. I made a comment about how the appeals system, which is full of highly trained and knowledgeable judges, is a refiner for difficult constitutional questions, like this one.
Is the appeals system a good and reliable way to enforce such a serious penalty?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
If we're talking about inexperience, look no further than Joe Biden
While preparing tomorrow's lesson, I came across some information that would be valuable in the current presidential contest. Democrats accuse the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee of being inexperienced because she only has been a governor of a state for two years and a mayor of a small town for 11 years. Republicans accuse the Democratic Presidential nominee because he has only served in the US Senate for two years and frankly hasn't done a whole lot except run for president. The two people who are left out of the experience question are the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden and the GOP Presidential Nominee John McCain...until now.
John McCain's experience has never and will likely never be brought into question. His experiences as a Navy Commander indicate he can lead, make tough, life-altering decisions, and that he can stand up for himself. Plus, his reputation as a maverick in Congress was honed by his experience in the military, which leads people to agree that he will not change and that he has a very strong sense of who he is.
But, I'm not so sure Senator Biden is above the fray.
Joe Biden became a senator from the tiny state of Delaware in 1972 at the ripe age of 29. He said he was "...just out of law school" when he was elected. Since then, he has led a relatively distinguished senatorial career serving as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for a time during the 1980s and sitting on the Foreign Relations Committee.
That is all good and fine, but anyone who knows anything about the DC-Beltway knows that it isn't the real world. True, Senator Biden does live in his home in Delaware and proudly takes the train home every night. But, that's only an hour-long ride and Delaware is now considered a suburb of Washington, DC. (Yes, the entire state is a suburb of DC.)
Has the senator any real-world experience as an attorney in private practice, trying to make ends meet as a small business owner? No, he is a career politician - a moniker that is not well-received by those outside of the the Beltway. Is he prepared to lead this country, if necessary? He certainly knows a lot of people in important positions. He has spent his career in government as a high-ranking elected official. But, does he know you and me? Does he know what we go through? That's something to consider...
Monday, September 15, 2008
Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint; Broad Constructionist, Strict Constructionist
Should judges legislate from the bench?
How should the constitution be interpreted - literally or loosely?
Sarah Palin, the Feminist
Many "traditional" feminists would argue that Sarah Palin is no feminist. She simply doesn't fit the liberal, bra-burning mold. She is too wholesome, too monogamous, and too Republican. Yet, she is reaching political heights not many members of the feminist movement have reached, thus opening many, many doors for women and girls for years to come. Overnight, she accomplished what more extreme, self-interested feminists could not accomplish in 50 years.
So, is Sarah Palin a feminist?
What does "feminist" really mean? Is there more than one type of feminist? What does history say about it? What did it take to get women's suffrage?
What would the stereotypical feminist say about Sarah Palin? What would the average American woman say about her? Who is the average American woman?
Why is she so popular? Why do people love her so much? Why was she the best thing that happened to the McCain ticket?
If McCain wins, why will she be the best thing that will have happened to women in almost 100 years?
So, is Sarah Palin a feminist?
What does "feminist" really mean? Is there more than one type of feminist? What does history say about it? What did it take to get women's suffrage?
What would the stereotypical feminist say about Sarah Palin? What would the average American woman say about her? Who is the average American woman?
Why is she so popular? Why do people love her so much? Why was she the best thing that happened to the McCain ticket?
If McCain wins, why will she be the best thing that will have happened to women in almost 100 years?
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Purposes of a Political Science Class
As we enter the fifth week of Political Science 1100, there is something you should know about the class. It serves two purposes: 1) to teach you the structure of your government, how it became the way it is, and give you reasons to get involved and 2) to confuse you until you figure out what you really believe about politics.
There is a saying that is far too often quoted for my taste. It is "Never talk about religion or politics." The reason these two subjects are often avoided in mixed company is because both involve very personal and sometimes controversial feelings. But, if we avoid these subjects forever, we will go throughout life without purpose or direction. There is also a couple of sayings that go something like this: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," or "If there is nothing valuable enough to fight for, you must not value anything."
That's where this class comes in particularly handy.
Although I can't do much for you in the area of religion, I can help you form your own political points of view. Interestingly, I have very little if anything to do with it. All I do is facilitate a class for three hours a week where I let you explore your own feelings about tough issues like abortion, civil rights, immigration, judicial review, taxes, and government involvement in your lives. You do the rest.
As you ponder and allow some ideas to marinate in your minds and hearts, you will find an almost religious conviction of the truthfulness or falsehood of tough issues. I suggest you open your minds to the possibilities that you might be wrong. It's amazing what you learn when that happens.
So, in the end, this class will have done one of two things: strengthened the ideas you had at the beginning of this class so much that there is no more doubt OR confused the hell out of you, which is also just as good. As you meander through your confusion with an open mind, you will refine your points of view. You will pick up nuggets of truth that will eventually shape your personal political doctrine. Funny thing, though. The more you seek for the truth, the more it will be challenged. Be prepared to defend it because an idea that can't stand up to scrutiny in the light of day isn't much of an idea.
My personal political journey is still ongoing. My points of view are constantly being challenged and refined. I'm always finding my views shift depending on the knowledge I allow myself to gain. A little advice, let change happen in your search for political truth. You will be a better informed citizen and a truer American.
There is a saying that is far too often quoted for my taste. It is "Never talk about religion or politics." The reason these two subjects are often avoided in mixed company is because both involve very personal and sometimes controversial feelings. But, if we avoid these subjects forever, we will go throughout life without purpose or direction. There is also a couple of sayings that go something like this: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," or "If there is nothing valuable enough to fight for, you must not value anything."
That's where this class comes in particularly handy.
Although I can't do much for you in the area of religion, I can help you form your own political points of view. Interestingly, I have very little if anything to do with it. All I do is facilitate a class for three hours a week where I let you explore your own feelings about tough issues like abortion, civil rights, immigration, judicial review, taxes, and government involvement in your lives. You do the rest.
As you ponder and allow some ideas to marinate in your minds and hearts, you will find an almost religious conviction of the truthfulness or falsehood of tough issues. I suggest you open your minds to the possibilities that you might be wrong. It's amazing what you learn when that happens.
So, in the end, this class will have done one of two things: strengthened the ideas you had at the beginning of this class so much that there is no more doubt OR confused the hell out of you, which is also just as good. As you meander through your confusion with an open mind, you will refine your points of view. You will pick up nuggets of truth that will eventually shape your personal political doctrine. Funny thing, though. The more you seek for the truth, the more it will be challenged. Be prepared to defend it because an idea that can't stand up to scrutiny in the light of day isn't much of an idea.
My personal political journey is still ongoing. My points of view are constantly being challenged and refined. I'm always finding my views shift depending on the knowledge I allow myself to gain. A little advice, let change happen in your search for political truth. You will be a better informed citizen and a truer American.
The Two Purposes of a Political Science Class
As we enter the fifth week of Political Science 1100, there is something you should know about the class. It serves two purposes: 1) to teach you the structure of your government, how it became the way it is, and give you reasons to get involved and 2) to confuse you until you figure out what you really believe about politics.
There is a saying that is far too often quoted for my taste. It is "Never talk about religion or politics." The reason these two subjects are often avoided in mixed company is because both involve very personal and sometimes controversial feelings. But, if we avoid these subjects forever, we will go throughout life without purpose or direction. There is also a couple of sayings that go something like this: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," or "If there is nothing valuable enough to fight for, you must not value anything."
That's where this class comes in particularly handy.
Although I can't do much for you in the area of religion, I can help you form your own political points of view. Interestingly, I have very little if anything to do with it. All I do is facilitate a class for three hours a week where I let you explore your own feelings about tough issues like abortion, civil rights, immigration, judicial review, taxes, and government involvement in your lives. You do the rest.
As you ponder and allow some ideas to marinate in your minds and hearts, you will find an almost religious conviction of the truthfulness or falsehood of tough issues. I suggest you open your minds to the possibilities that you might be wrong. It's amazing what you learn when that happens.
So, in the end, this class will have done one of two things: strengthened the ideas you had at the beginning of this class so much that there is no more doubt OR confused the hell out of you, which is also just as good. As you meander through your confusion with an open mind, you will refine your points of view. You will pick up nuggets of truth that will eventually shape your personal political doctrine. Funny thing, though. The more you seek for the truth, the more it will be challenged. Be prepared to defend it because an idea that can't stand up to scrutiny in the light of day isn't much of an idea.
My personal political journey is still ongoing. My points of view are constantly being challenged and refined. I'm always finding my views shift depending on the knowledge I allow myself to gain. A little advice, let change happen in your search for political truth. You will be a better informed citizen and a truer American.
There is a saying that is far too often quoted for my taste. It is "Never talk about religion or politics." The reason these two subjects are often avoided in mixed company is because both involve very personal and sometimes controversial feelings. But, if we avoid these subjects forever, we will go throughout life without purpose or direction. There is also a couple of sayings that go something like this: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything," or "If there is nothing valuable enough to fight for, you must not value anything."
That's where this class comes in particularly handy.
Although I can't do much for you in the area of religion, I can help you form your own political points of view. Interestingly, I have very little if anything to do with it. All I do is facilitate a class for three hours a week where I let you explore your own feelings about tough issues like abortion, civil rights, immigration, judicial review, taxes, and government involvement in your lives. You do the rest.
As you ponder and allow some ideas to marinate in your minds and hearts, you will find an almost religious conviction of the truthfulness or falsehood of tough issues. I suggest you open your minds to the possibilities that you might be wrong. It's amazing what you learn when that happens.
So, in the end, this class will have done one of two things: strengthened the ideas you had at the beginning of this class so much that there is no more doubt OR confused the hell out of you, which is also just as good. As you meander through your confusion with an open mind, you will refine your points of view. You will pick up nuggets of truth that will eventually shape your personal political doctrine. Funny thing, though. The more you seek for the truth, the more it will be challenged. Be prepared to defend it because an idea that can't stand up to scrutiny in the light of day isn't much of an idea.
My personal political journey is still ongoing. My points of view are constantly being challenged and refined. I'm always finding my views shift depending on the knowledge I allow myself to gain. A little advice, let change happen in your search for political truth. You will be a better informed citizen and a truer American.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Retaliation versus Pre-emptive Strike (from Dan Quinney)
Retaliation vs Pre-emptive Strike
This is a topic which I’ve been contemplating for quite some time, even before starting this class. When, if ever, is it justified to strike first? Now, I’m sure that most people are already saying in their minds, “it’s never just,” since it seems natural that it’s only just to attack if we are attacked first. But, what if the pre-emptive attack were to prevent, or reduce, the damage of a much larger conflict?
So let’s look at an example. Seven years ago tomorrow, we were attacked by terrorists. As the years have progressed, it has been presented that we could have stopped these horrific attacks, given the knowledge we had at the time. Why didn’t we? I won’t answer this yet.
Next example: March, 2003, we invade Iraq, based on enough intelligence to convince Congress that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and in order to prevent their use, we decided to stop them before they were used. Looking at it now, we never found any. Why did we attack then?
This all seems clear and straight-forward at this point, background information and such, and I’m sure some of you are probably saying, “And your point?” Let’s go back in time far enough to where we could have prevented 9/11 with what information we had. What would we have done? Detain people who haven’t done anything yet? Or, perhaps we would have used the opportunity to invade Afghanistan, citing claims of terrorists bent on using our own commercial airliners as missiles? Would this have stopped the attacks? Probably; but, if no attacks happened, how did we know that they really were going to happen? We never found anything substantial – no ‘smoking gun’ screaming: “Hey look, they were going to attack.” Why? Because, when an attack is imminent, you will do anything you can to discredit your enemy, leaving them to look like fools. And so, we would be faced with the same situation we have encountered with Iraq: a pre-emptive strike under supposed false pretenses, leaving us with a drawn-out guerilla war making us look like complete buffoons.
So then, what would have happened if we hadn’t invaded Iraq? We were under the assumption that they had WMDs, and we all know what happens when we assume. Did they have them? Our current evidence says no, but pre-war intelligence said otherwise. They must have had something at some time then. What should we have done then? Waited for an attack that we know would have come, and probably would have killed thousands of people?
And so I pose the question again: when is it justified to strike first?
Are Democrats Sexist?
Sarah Palin made a joke in her acceptance speech about how lipstick is the only difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom. That zinger was very well received by not only the Republican National Conventioneers, but apparently, a lot of Americans.
Yesterday, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama tried to draw a comparison between the McCain campaign and the Bush administration by saying, "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."
Joe Biden referred to Palin as a "backwards step for women."
Additionally, Biden was introduced by a Democratic congressman who said in reference to Sarah Palin, "No way you can dress up that record -- even with a lot of lipstick."
First, are Democrats sexist?
Second, are their attacks on Sarah Palin helping their cause or sinking their campaign?
Third, are they attacking the right candidate?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Politics of Yankee Stadium (From Benjamin)
Last month, New Yorker Brad Campeau-Laurion was kicked out of Yankee Stadium by the NYPD for going to the bathroom during the playing of God Bless America, a Yankee Stadium tradition since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The entire story, plus the NYPD's response, can be found here:
http://deadspin.com/5043563/cops-tell-different-tale-about-fan-who-was-ejected-over-god-bless-america
Even with the he-said-she-said element to this story (not to mention the fact that the man is a Red Sox fan, not a Yankees fan), the outrageousness of this situation ultimately boils down to who kicked him out of the stadium, not why he was kicked out.
It is the discretion of the New York Yankees as to what constitutes appropriate behavior at their stadium, and most professional sports venues will both post and broadcast unacceptable antics, such as "interfering with play will result in ejection", etc.
I can not find any specific policy online concerning Yankee Stadium's behavior policies, but I can say from experience working at both major and minor league ballparks that there are not enough police officers compared to stadium staff to make them the first line of defense against bad behavior.
It troubles me that the NYPD, in this instance, felt empowered to enforce behavioral conduct at Yankee Stadium, rather than stadium staff. Even if the NYPD's story is true, and the man was "cursing" and "reeking of alcohol", stadium staff could have given the man a chance to tone down his behavior, or face expulsion. If the man either ignored the request or became confrontational, then the police could have been asked to step in and remove the man.
For example, here's a video of a police officer at Yankee Stadium politely asking unruly Mets fans to move to another section of the stadium in order to break up a fight, rather that kicking them out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqJuFmzgIg
It becomes clear, then, that the NYPD was not necessarily acting properly when they kicked this man out, no matter which version of the story is correct. The NYPD admits that "officers" took it upon themselves to "decide" to "eject" the man when nothing other than drunken behavior is alleged to have taken place, which needless to say is commonplace at every MLB game in America. The statement does not mention any requests from Yankees staff, or even other fans, to remove the man.
Because you are not "allowed" to do anything at Yankee Stadium other than stand silently during God Bless America, and that the NYPD's statement admits to a lesser wrong, it's quite likely that the man's story is true. This man's only crime was exercising his right to "disrespect" a song by going to the bathroom during it, an act that would have not have caused a problem at literally any other point during the game.
http://deadspin.com/5043563/cops-tell-different-tale-about-fan-who-was-ejected-over-god-bless-america
Even with the he-said-she-said element to this story (not to mention the fact that the man is a Red Sox fan, not a Yankees fan), the outrageousness of this situation ultimately boils down to who kicked him out of the stadium, not why he was kicked out.
It is the discretion of the New York Yankees as to what constitutes appropriate behavior at their stadium, and most professional sports venues will both post and broadcast unacceptable antics, such as "interfering with play will result in ejection", etc.
I can not find any specific policy online concerning Yankee Stadium's behavior policies, but I can say from experience working at both major and minor league ballparks that there are not enough police officers compared to stadium staff to make them the first line of defense against bad behavior.
It troubles me that the NYPD, in this instance, felt empowered to enforce behavioral conduct at Yankee Stadium, rather than stadium staff. Even if the NYPD's story is true, and the man was "cursing" and "reeking of alcohol", stadium staff could have given the man a chance to tone down his behavior, or face expulsion. If the man either ignored the request or became confrontational, then the police could have been asked to step in and remove the man.
For example, here's a video of a police officer at Yankee Stadium politely asking unruly Mets fans to move to another section of the stadium in order to break up a fight, rather that kicking them out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqJuFmzgIg
It becomes clear, then, that the NYPD was not necessarily acting properly when they kicked this man out, no matter which version of the story is correct. The NYPD admits that "officers" took it upon themselves to "decide" to "eject" the man when nothing other than drunken behavior is alleged to have taken place, which needless to say is commonplace at every MLB game in America. The statement does not mention any requests from Yankees staff, or even other fans, to remove the man.
Because you are not "allowed" to do anything at Yankee Stadium other than stand silently during God Bless America, and that the NYPD's statement admits to a lesser wrong, it's quite likely that the man's story is true. This man's only crime was exercising his right to "disrespect" a song by going to the bathroom during it, an act that would have not have caused a problem at literally any other point during the game.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Does Cooperative Federalism Work?
Why is a cooperative federalism system effective? Should we go back to a Dual Federalism system?
The Commonalities between Liberals and Conservatives
Liberals and Conservatives have more in common than they might think. They both want government to step in on things that matter to them and to stay away on things that matter maybe even a little bit more.
Liberals want government to be a vigilant rescuer when it comes to the poor, the disenfranchised, or the downtrodden who haven't had the perceived opportunity to make it on their own. Government-mandated social programs are a liberal staple to assist those who cannot assist themselves.
Conservatives want government to step in when justice is being threatened, like ensuring the rights of the unborn and giving rights to slaves. They also want government to ensure contracts will be honored -- social and otherwise.
Liberals want government to take a hands-off approach when it comes to a lasting personal choice. For example, a pro-choice advocate wants government to stay away when it comes time for a woman to choose when she will have or not have a child.
Conservatives prefer a governmental hands-off approach when it comes to fiscal policy. Generally speaking, they consider taxes as "legal plunder" and think they know how to spend their money better than the government.
The similarities are there, but just with opposite issues. Liberals like government when it is willing to help with general temporary social needs, but dislikes government when it comes to permanent personal social decisions. Conservatives like government when it comes to permanent social rights, but dislike the government when it comes to temporary personal fiscal choices.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
What is the difference between the slavery issue and the abortion issue?
In an attempt to stay neutral, I wanted to pose a comparison and allow you all to discuss it.
While listening to Fred Thompson speaking at the Republican National Convention, something crossed my mind that had not occurred to me before. Allow me to make a simple comparison and I will step out of the way to allow you all to discuss it.
Those who support a Pro-Life platform today are similar to those who were strongly against slavery before and during the Civil War.
Those who support a Pro-Choice platform today are similar to those who strongly supported a States' Rights platform before and during the Civil War.
Why would I make these comparisons? What does it have to do with States' Rights vs. Individual Liberties? Do you agree? Why? Why not?
While listening to Fred Thompson speaking at the Republican National Convention, something crossed my mind that had not occurred to me before. Allow me to make a simple comparison and I will step out of the way to allow you all to discuss it.
Those who support a Pro-Life platform today are similar to those who were strongly against slavery before and during the Civil War.
Those who support a Pro-Choice platform today are similar to those who strongly supported a States' Rights platform before and during the Civil War.
Why would I make these comparisons? What does it have to do with States' Rights vs. Individual Liberties? Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Monday, September 1, 2008
Police Raids at Political Conventions
Benjamin posted this:
I think this is probably the first many in our class will have heard of this, but the behavior of Denver and Minneapolis police in dealing with DNC and RNC protesters this past week has been quite frightening. One first-hand witness account of the behavior of the Denver police can be found in here: http://m.denverpost.com/topic/379-Denver%20&%20The%20West/articles/155750558 A local report on one DNC protest scene can be found here with pictures: http://cbs4denver.com/local/arrests.clash.protest.2.803008.html And Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald (arguably the most astute and thorough of all political bloggers) has compiled an overview of the pre-emptive raids by Minneapolis police here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald/ The only issue that can be raised on these accounts of police behavior is credibility. One can wonder if these accounts are made up for subversive political reasons, but it becomes increasingly clear watching the videos and pictures Greenwald provides in his links that, at the very least, raids did occur on Minneapolis college students. Not to mention that the Denver Post saw fit to print one first hand account, so either they found the submission credible, or they are "in on it too". If, then, we can conclude that these raids and detainments did occur in both cities for both elections as they have been described, we have to ask ourselves where the Constitution currently stands in this nation. The First Amendment guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, and the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from unjust search and seizure. Are these actions by both police forces not extremely egregious and outrageous? I can not imagine any Founding Father, whether Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison or anyone else, being ok with the behaviors exhibited to people who are essentially our direct peers, 20-something college students. If we lived in Minneapolis instead of Salt Lake City, this could have very well happened to someone in our class. There was some discussion last week on what constituted a growing threat of tyranny in this country, that the behavior of our Supreme Court is something we need to look out for. If our Supreme Court should ever side on behalf of these two police forces in any related cases brought before them, then I think the point may have been correct.
VP candidate's daughter is pregnant. So?
Why is GOP VP pick Sarah Palin's daughter's newly revealed pregnancy a political issue?
Tell me your thoughts.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Blessing of a Constitution
Colton McClachlan posted the following:
As our guest speaker talked about the Constitution, I found it odd and
different that lots of countries do not have Constitutions, especially
like ours because ours works so well and helps us live happy, free
lives for the most part and seeing how well the Constitution works
compared to countries and there way of governing.
different that lots of countries do not have Constitutions, especially
like ours because ours works so well and helps us live happy, free
lives for the most part and seeing how well the Constitution works
compared to countries and there way of governing.
I thought it sad in the story about the 3 kids from Burma whose parents
were killed for their beliefs in how the country should be run. But
what a noble cause to die for, for something you believe with all your
heart. I think a Constitution like ours can be a blessing to other
countries if they could except and apply it. Sure it would take awhile
but think about how much better the country would be run.
were killed for their beliefs in how the country should be run. But
what a noble cause to die for, for something you believe with all your
heart. I think a Constitution like ours can be a blessing to other
countries if they could except and apply it. Sure it would take awhile
but think about how much better the country would be run.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Constitution and the Jefferson's Three Points of Success
Jefferson's Three Points of Success:
1. Free, public education
2. Free Press
3. Virtue (Serving the Public or your fellow man)
1. Free, public education
2. Free Press
3. Virtue (Serving the Public or your fellow man)
(Added Sept. 1, 2008)
Alexis de Tocqueville, an French historian researching the newly formed American republic, said this about America:
"America is good because America is great. If America ceases to be good, it will cease to be great."
Truer words were never spoken. However, what is "good?" Tell us all about it.
Revering the Constitution and Government as an Idea
Tonight, we discussed the Constitution in depth. One thing that kept biting me to tell you all is how important this document is in your lives. Michael Stewart was correct when he talked about how the government of laws creates stability, predictability, and how millions of people want into this country for those things.
We live in a rare country in the history of the world. Not even since the dawn of democracy has a government afforded its people so many liberties at the same time providing them with a relatively stable economy and a consistent way doing things.
The government is only an idea, and a fragile one at that. It is critical that each one of us struggle to keep that idea alive, however we interpret it to be. If you have ever taken a philosophy class, you will learn that an idea that does not stand up to a challenge is not much of an idea in the first place. Our "idea" or government has been tested for over 200 years and it is still going strong. Keep discussing. Keep debating. Keep refining your own points of view. Who knows? Maybe during these debates you will come up with the greatest idea in the history of government, run for office, and make it a reality.
We live in a rare country in the history of the world. Not even since the dawn of democracy has a government afforded its people so many liberties at the same time providing them with a relatively stable economy and a consistent way doing things.
The government is only an idea, and a fragile one at that. It is critical that each one of us struggle to keep that idea alive, however we interpret it to be. If you have ever taken a philosophy class, you will learn that an idea that does not stand up to a challenge is not much of an idea in the first place. Our "idea" or government has been tested for over 200 years and it is still going strong. Keep discussing. Keep debating. Keep refining your own points of view. Who knows? Maybe during these debates you will come up with the greatest idea in the history of government, run for office, and make it a reality.
The Amazing Elasticity of the US Constitution
The Following is a post by Jonathan Metzler:
When the Constitution was written it was a different world than the one we live in today. Was there any way for the authors of this great document to foresee the issues and concerns of our day? No. This to me is why it is amazing that the Constitution has been bent but not broken.
Courts, congress, and presidents have been able to interpret or bend the Constitution to adapt to ever changing issues and political environments. While they have been able to interpret it to help their causes it has only been amended a total of 27 times in over 200 years. Pretty remarkable for a period of time that encompasses numerous wars, constant changes in technological advancement, a never ending influx of new citizens and cultures, and a global economy that the founding fathers could not have imagined.
To me the Constitution has an elastic quality that is unequaled in any other document you will find. Its elasticity allows us to interpret what the founders of our country originally wrote to fit in our turbulent and changing times, while its strength will make sure that we never break it.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Definition of Elitist
Below is Amanda Empey's post. If you would like to start a new post, please just email it to me.
During class last week, the word "elite" was mentioned, and (if I recall correctly), Matt said he didn't quite like the word. It reminded me of this segment on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart about the candidates being "elitists":
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074
Just some disclaimers: if you haven't seen The Daily Show, I'll describe it a bit. It's a current events program on Comedy Central that could be classified as "infotainment". They're often quite harsh on the candidates and use colorful language, but this clip is as broadcast so anything that wouldn't have been allowed on cable (the "f word" and the like) has been bleeped out, but there are still some other words that some people might find offensive included.
The clip is about 9 minutes long, but the part I'm specifically commenting on starts at 7:07. Here's a summary of what Jon Stewart says (minus the saucy words) if you're hesitant to watch:
In April, Barack Obama went to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco and made the comment that, in some Midwestern towns, the residents had become bitter, and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The news media talked about it at length (the clips of this are shown in a montage on The Daily Show in this segment) and call Obama an "elitist" for saying such a thing.
Jon Stewart then replies, "Doesn't 'elite' mean ”good?” Is that not something we're looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates?... I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you're applying for? If you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what [censored] are you doing?" He goes on to say that he wants someone "embarassingly superior" to him to become President, someone who "speaks 16 languages", for example.
I had to agree that it seems like we have a strange dichotomy in place- we seem to elect Presidents who we could hang out with; that feel approachable and nice, but we "hire" them to what could be one of the most important jobs in the world. Should we focus so much on a candidates likability, or should we only look at their resume when deciding? Would you be willing to vote for someone who is stodgy and dull but has extraordinary skills?
http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074
Just some disclaimers: if you haven't seen The Daily Show, I'll describe it a bit. It's a current events program on Comedy Central that could be classified as "infotainment". They're often quite harsh on the candidates and use colorful language, but this clip is as broadcast so anything that wouldn't have been allowed on cable (the "f word" and the like) has been bleeped out, but there are still some other words that some people might find offensive included.
The clip is about 9 minutes long, but the part I'm specifically commenting on starts at 7:07. Here's a summary of what Jon Stewart says (minus the saucy words) if you're hesitant to watch:
In April, Barack Obama went to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco and made the comment that, in some Midwestern towns, the residents had become bitter, and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The news media talked about it at length (the clips of this are shown in a montage on The Daily Show in this segment) and call Obama an "elitist" for saying such a thing.
Jon Stewart then replies, "Doesn't 'elite' mean ”good?” Is that not something we're looking for in a President anymore? You know what candidates?... I know 'elite' is a bad word in politics, and you want to go bowling and throw back a few beers, but the job you're applying for? If you get it and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain! If you don't actually think you're better than us, then what [censored] are you doing?" He goes on to say that he wants someone "embarassingly superior" to him to become President, someone who "speaks 16 languages", for example.
I had to agree that it seems like we have a strange dichotomy in place- we seem to elect Presidents who we could hang out with; that feel approachable and nice, but we "hire" them to what could be one of the most important jobs in the world. Should we focus so much on a candidates likability, or should we only look at their resume when deciding? Would you be willing to vote for someone who is stodgy and dull but has extraordinary skills?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Posting to the Blog
You're asking yourself, "How do I post to this blog?"
To submit a main posting:
1. Email Matt.bunker@slcc.edu your message and I'll post it to the blog if it is the first thought on an issue.
2. If your message coincides with one already posted, please post it as a "comment" as detailed below.
To comment on a current main post:
1. Click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the post.
2. Write your comments in the vacant field.
3. Click on one of the four identity* options.
4. Post your comment.
Your comment will then come to the moderator and will then be appended to the blog.
*You have four options to submit your identity:
1. Sign up with Google and use your Google/Blogger Username
2. Use an OpenID username and password
3. Type your name or a user name in the "Name" field and upload your comment to the blog. (Preferred and Easiest)
4. Upload your comment anonymously.
To submit a main posting:
1. Email Matt.bunker@slcc.edu your message and I'll post it to the blog if it is the first thought on an issue.
2. If your message coincides with one already posted, please post it as a "comment" as detailed below.
To comment on a current main post:
1. Click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the post.
2. Write your comments in the vacant field.
3. Click on one of the four identity* options.
4. Post your comment.
Your comment will then come to the moderator and will then be appended to the blog.
*You have four options to submit your identity:
1. Sign up with Google and use your Google/Blogger Username
2. Use an OpenID username and password
3. Type your name or a user name in the "Name" field and upload your comment to the blog. (Preferred and Easiest)
4. Upload your comment anonymously.
It Didn't Have to Happen the Way it Happened
Last night, we learned that the history of the United States of America did not have to turn out the way it did. If the winds were blowing to the East instead of to the South the night of the Battle of Trenton, the British would have likely discovered the Continental Army closing in on them, immediately snuffed them out, and we'd all still be singing "God Save the Queen" instead of the "Star Spangled Banner." This and so many other fortunate circumstances allowed the United States to break from Great Britain completely.
But, that is not all...
After the war was won against the British, the war began in our "teeming Nation of nations." So many different view points, economic priorities, and ideological priorities flowed together to create a mixture of tension that eventually made these new United States weak. If it wasn't for the foresight and stubborn determination of a few young statesmen, our nascent country would have failed before it had a chance to begin.
What are your thoughts? How are you influenced by some thirty-something who lived over 200 years ago in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts? How can you (a twenty, thirty, or forty-something in urban Utah) affect the life of a college student 200 years from now?
But, that is not all...
After the war was won against the British, the war began in our "teeming Nation of nations." So many different view points, economic priorities, and ideological priorities flowed together to create a mixture of tension that eventually made these new United States weak. If it wasn't for the foresight and stubborn determination of a few young statesmen, our nascent country would have failed before it had a chance to begin.
What are your thoughts? How are you influenced by some thirty-something who lived over 200 years ago in Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts? How can you (a twenty, thirty, or forty-something in urban Utah) affect the life of a college student 200 years from now?
Important Links
August 20 Lecture: Things Didn't Have to Happen the Way they Happened
"The Glorious Cause of America" by David McCullough originally given at Brigham Young University, September 27, 2005
Audio and Text: http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=5396
Audio Only: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=browse&speaker=McCullough%2C+David&topic=&type=&year=&x=12&y=12
August 27 Lecture: The Constitution
Transcript of the Declaration of Independence
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Register to Vote
https://secure.slco.org/cl/elections/html/register.html
"The Glorious Cause of America" by David McCullough originally given at Brigham Young University, September 27, 2005
Audio and Text: http://www.byub.org/findatalk/details.asp?ID=5396
Audio Only: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=browse&speaker=McCullough%2C+David&topic=&type=&year=&x=12&y=12
August 27 Lecture: The Constitution
Transcript of the Declaration of Independence
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Register to Vote
https://secure.slco.org/cl/elections/html/register.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
