Thursday, December 10, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
PACs and Super-PACs are Challenging the Political Process of Democracy
In the United States of America, there are groups that can provide money to either another specific group, a candidate, or a committee. These groups are known as PACs, or Political Action Committees. These groups can give up to $5,000 to a candidate committee, up to $15,000 to a national committee party, or up to $5,000 to another PAC. There are also things called Super-PACs. These are committees that cannot give money to a candidate or party, but also have no maximum amount of money they can use. Since they can't give the money to others, they use it for creating ads or commercials for a certain candidate or party instead.
Not surprisingly, there are usually two sides when viewing Super-PACs and PACs. To quote usnews.com on Super-PACs, "Proponents of super PACs argue that free speech is protected under the First Amendment, and they contend that it’s a fair system since candidates are not allowed to coordinate with them. Opponents disagree, and many are disturbed by predictions of upwards of $2 billion being spent by super PACs on the upcoming presidential election." In my opinion, PACs and Super-PACs are challenging the view of democracy in the United States. Yes, the (Super) PACs have no coordination with candidates, but it is very apparent in this world that the person with the most money tends to win. Because of the amount money earned and given by these committees, it looks like anyone who doesn't have enough money will definitely not win. According to cnbc.com and a research done by sunlightfoundation.com, "almost half of the contributions to the nine largest Super PACs have come from just 22 donors, who each gave more than $500,000." This political system is supposed to be about freedom and everyone having an equal chance at voting, not having the most rich person win every single time. Once again, PACs and Super-PACs are challenging the political process of democracy in the united states, and it needs to stop.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46341236
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/01/superpac-takeaways/
Not surprisingly, there are usually two sides when viewing Super-PACs and PACs. To quote usnews.com on Super-PACs, "Proponents of super PACs argue that free speech is protected under the First Amendment, and they contend that it’s a fair system since candidates are not allowed to coordinate with them. Opponents disagree, and many are disturbed by predictions of upwards of $2 billion being spent by super PACs on the upcoming presidential election." In my opinion, PACs and Super-PACs are challenging the view of democracy in the United States. Yes, the (Super) PACs have no coordination with candidates, but it is very apparent in this world that the person with the most money tends to win. Because of the amount money earned and given by these committees, it looks like anyone who doesn't have enough money will definitely not win. According to cnbc.com and a research done by sunlightfoundation.com, "almost half of the contributions to the nine largest Super PACs have come from just 22 donors, who each gave more than $500,000." This political system is supposed to be about freedom and everyone having an equal chance at voting, not having the most rich person win every single time. Once again, PACs and Super-PACs are challenging the political process of democracy in the united states, and it needs to stop.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacfaq.php
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/are-super-pacs-harming-us-politics
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46341236
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/02/01/superpac-takeaways/
Monday, November 30, 2015
Paris Attacks on November 13th, 2015
On November 13th, 2015 the city of Paris, France was attacked by multiple suicide bombers and gunmen. Hundreds were wounded and 129 were found dead. There were six points of attack in the city, of which were mainly restaurants. These attacks were heard around the world, and many have started to talk about taking action, including the United States of America.
However, the action is not one that one would have thought. The political parties and the government itself is split between reactions. Donald Trump, the Republican party front-runner, says that he wants the Muslims in America to be registered in "databases" so they can keep tabs on them, and to shut down Mosques all around the U.S. His fellow republican candidate, Ben Carson, has referred to certain Syrian refugees as "rabid dogs". Even Democratic figures are making statements, such as David Bowers, the mayor from Roanoke, Virginia. Bowers has referred his anti-refugee policy to the Japanese Interment camps from World War II. However, many of the candidates from both parties are paying their respects to the families in the attacks. Hilary Clinton, one of the main Democratic candidates, tweeted on the day of the attack, "The reports from Paris are harrowing. Praying for the city and the families of the victims. -H". Donald Trump, even though he made the statement above, gave his respects as well, saying this: "My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all."
American-Arabs that are currently in the United States are saying that this was worse than 9/11. After 9/11 first occured, President George W. Bush spoke at the famous Mosque, the Islamic Center. He defended the Muslims and made sure people knew that they were not to blame. If he had done that now, he would have been ridiculed by other Republicans. Heidie Beidrich is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Program. She deals with extremists, such as the ones in the Middle East. "We've never seen so many politicians making such outrageous Islamophobic comments both as concerns refugees who are coming here as well as just Muslims in general," Beidrich said. "Some of the things, for example, that Donald Trump is talking about, (like) registering Muslim Americans, are just shocking and ignorant and certainly not what the United States is about."
These attacks have caused large problems for the freedom of the American-Arabs in the United States. These citizens will be treated poorly until the problems in the Middle East are solved, whether they are solved with violence or with peace, only time will tell.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/14/455976394/u-s-political-reaction-to-paris-attacks-split-along-party-lines
However, the action is not one that one would have thought. The political parties and the government itself is split between reactions. Donald Trump, the Republican party front-runner, says that he wants the Muslims in America to be registered in "databases" so they can keep tabs on them, and to shut down Mosques all around the U.S. His fellow republican candidate, Ben Carson, has referred to certain Syrian refugees as "rabid dogs". Even Democratic figures are making statements, such as David Bowers, the mayor from Roanoke, Virginia. Bowers has referred his anti-refugee policy to the Japanese Interment camps from World War II. However, many of the candidates from both parties are paying their respects to the families in the attacks. Hilary Clinton, one of the main Democratic candidates, tweeted on the day of the attack, "The reports from Paris are harrowing. Praying for the city and the families of the victims. -H". Donald Trump, even though he made the statement above, gave his respects as well, saying this: "My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks. May God be with you all."
American-Arabs that are currently in the United States are saying that this was worse than 9/11. After 9/11 first occured, President George W. Bush spoke at the famous Mosque, the Islamic Center. He defended the Muslims and made sure people knew that they were not to blame. If he had done that now, he would have been ridiculed by other Republicans. Heidie Beidrich is the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Program. She deals with extremists, such as the ones in the Middle East. "We've never seen so many politicians making such outrageous Islamophobic comments both as concerns refugees who are coming here as well as just Muslims in general," Beidrich said. "Some of the things, for example, that Donald Trump is talking about, (like) registering Muslim Americans, are just shocking and ignorant and certainly not what the United States is about."
These attacks have caused large problems for the freedom of the American-Arabs in the United States. These citizens will be treated poorly until the problems in the Middle East are solved, whether they are solved with violence or with peace, only time will tell.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34818994
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/14/455976394/u-s-political-reaction-to-paris-attacks-split-along-party-lines
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Freedom With Responsibility Pictures
 |
| This example of freedom with responsibility is for the students. These students are given the freedom to leave campus or their classes if they choose to, but they also have a responsibility to return to these classes and finish work, otherwise this freedom is taken away. |
 |
| This picture of freedom with responsibility is simple: You cannot have one without the other. To have freedom, you must also have a responsibility to even it out. If you do not have any responsibility to go along with the freedom, then there is nothing stopping you from straight up leaving or not doing any work you were to have completed. |
 |
| Freedom with responsibility has multiple parts to it. You are given a set amount of boundaries at the beginning and a limited amount of freedom. Once you have shown that you can complete a responsibility, your range of freedom increases. If you cannot show responsibility, then your freedom will not increase. |
 |
| A real life example of freedom with responsibility is the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers or the U.S. Government had to create a declaration saying that they wanted freedom. But with this freedom, they also had to make sure they could have responsibilities to keep this new country in balance. Otherwise it would fall out of balance quickly and become chaotic. |
 |
| Another real life example of freedom with responsibility is the first amendment, the right of freedom of speech. Every person has the right to say what they want, which is the freedom of speech, but with this freedom at any given time you must also remember that there are restrictions. You must have the responsibility to make sure what you are saying is not going to cause any problems with people, as you must answer for any consequences you may create for yourself. |
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Freedom With Responsibility
9/1/15
To me, freedom with responsibility means being able to do what you want, but with certain restrictions. It could mean being able to go out with friends, but you have a curfew. Your freedom is going out with your friends. The responsibility part is making sure to come home by the curfew. Having this responsibility means that people trust you enough to do things by yourself, although you must show them that you can handle it. If you don't show them that they can trust you, you won't have the freedom. Freedom with responsibility is all about trust.
9/7/15
To quote Sigmund Freud, "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom assumes responsibility and most people are afraid of that responsibility." This explains how freedom with responsibility is about trust. People don't want to be trusted with having certain responsibilities, so they are afraid of that freedom and responsibility.
Also, students themselves should know what freedom with responsibility means to them. Here's a quote from another freshman, Hallam George: "Freedom with responsibility means to me that I have the ability to do what I please with my life but with that comes duties that I must fulfill to myself and others to maintain this freedom." As he stated, you must complete certain responsibilities to earn the freedom. You will not and can not be given this freedom without some aspect of responsibility.
To me, freedom with responsibility means being able to do what you want, but with certain restrictions. It could mean being able to go out with friends, but you have a curfew. Your freedom is going out with your friends. The responsibility part is making sure to come home by the curfew. Having this responsibility means that people trust you enough to do things by yourself, although you must show them that you can handle it. If you don't show them that they can trust you, you won't have the freedom. Freedom with responsibility is all about trust.
9/7/15
To quote Sigmund Freud, "Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom assumes responsibility and most people are afraid of that responsibility." This explains how freedom with responsibility is about trust. People don't want to be trusted with having certain responsibilities, so they are afraid of that freedom and responsibility.
Also, students themselves should know what freedom with responsibility means to them. Here's a quote from another freshman, Hallam George: "Freedom with responsibility means to me that I have the ability to do what I please with my life but with that comes duties that I must fulfill to myself and others to maintain this freedom." As he stated, you must complete certain responsibilities to earn the freedom. You will not and can not be given this freedom without some aspect of responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)