Article

   On May twenty-second, an article was posted about water pollution all over the United States. It talks about the water problem in Flint Michigan and how it isn't getting fixed. It also brought up two other instances of water pollution such as the one in Navajo where it is a matter of getting clean drinking water from miles away or risking the chances of getting cancer from the water since there was a uranium mine built there ages ago. The last location it brought up is in Charleston West Virginia where the water has been banned from consumption after some officials discovered a licorice smell coming from the water after a chemical leak. The reasoning behind nothing really being done for these people is because of our unequal economic system, systemic problems, and negative stereotypes towards people causing little to nothing being done for them. 

   This is relevant to what we are doing in class because water pollution is the topic for the project I am making a video for. This shows what can happen because of water pollution which can help me and my partner on our video. These stories also give us insight into how we can help stop it and possibly end it in the US. While looking for this story I also found other interesting articles that could help our research for the video and make it more credible. This article has indirectly helped me a lot with this video we are making in class.

   I think this article is important because if people are having trouble with the basic thing needed for life on earth we should try and help them not leave them out to dry and deal with it on their own when they can't. Even if they are a lower social class or different race they should still get the same things the rich white people do in America. I think it's a disgrace to have people struggle with finding water in a country as advanced as America. Even though it's a problem in America there are far worse problems in other countries but this article brings light to the problems in our own country. We should at least try and help these people rather than blame their problems on them when it isn't even their fault, it's the fault of the failing government we made and how riddled with corruption and corporate funding controlling it.

Article

   Today, the Justice Department appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the investigation into Russian interference with the election. Mueller has authorized to prosecute federal crimes in the federal investigation. This appointment was supposed to be used to calm the public after Trump fired the last FBI Director James Comey. Most of the White House does not agree that giving him special counsel is a good idea. Meanwhile, some officials such as Rosenstein believe that special counsel is necessary for the investigation to be thorough and effective.

    This doesn't really relate to what we are going over in class but it relates to Congress and the Executive branch which we went over during course work. Since he was elected after the previous one was fired it shows how Congress would rather use someone with experience over someone with new ideas. Since they can't decide one whether or not to give him special counsel shows how bi-partisan our government is and how they make every little thing difficult. This whole situation would be easier to deal with if Russia didn't get involved in the first place.

   I think this is important because it could be something Trump is remembered for like Nixon is remembered for Watergate, and Clinton is remembered by Monica Lewinski. It could be his downfall or it could lead to a bad situation between the U.S. and Russia. Most likely it will turn out to be nothing and a big waste of time for both parties involved. I just hope once this investigation is over we will start using our resources wisely and for a good purpose or cause. It just seems to be an ongoing process that doesn't have an end in sight, or maybe it is actually being used to cover up something else that the government doesn't want to be leaked.

Article

   On May 2nd, 2017, an article was posted on CNN about a group called The Urban League. They talk about how Trump is jeopardizing a lot of progress that was mad while Obama was in office. The Trump administration is wanting to move funding from public schools to the defense program. When Obama was in office 15 million new jobs were created and "high school graduation rates soared." In response to hearing Trump's budget plans The Urban League is calling for his administration to put $2 trillion into job training, education and health insurance in specified areas. They are also asking for another $2 trillion to go into infrastructure improvements as well as raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

   This relates to what were are learning in class because it talks about Trump influencing public policy. Trump has very heavy and strict policies on specific groups to benefit the US as a whole. Some people don't agree with his ideas and think efforts should be put somewhere else. The Urban League is trying to get the word out that Trump isn't helping out Americans rather he is just protecting them from outside dangers but we have to fend for ourselves. Since Trump has used many executive orders he is essentially taking out the people's voice in these controversial matters since the people elect their representatives in congress.

   I think this article has good and bad ideas in it. It is right that we aren't focusing on fixing the US rather just protecting it. But it needs to take into account many people work on the budget and can't just give away $4 trillion to benefit what a small group of people want. There need to be changes made on both sides of this matter, the government needs to focus more on its own people rather than focus heavily on immigrants and terrorists. While on the other hand, the people need to take into consideration that the people who work for the US government have years of experience and years of schooling behind that to be able to work as a government official and are more qualified to handle situations than the average citizen or interest group.

I was in class today and was told I didn't need to do a blog post.

Article

   On March 27th, an article was posted about Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner and how he is going against the bureaucracy. Most governments try to bring corporate know-how to the political side of things but most often fail to do so. Some people's ideas of improving their bureaucracy are by "empowering task forces and technocrats, czars and commissars" and doing so has had little improvement of any sort. The problem with bringing the companies into the political spectrum is that it also brings along all its negatives like being subject to a free market and replicating discipline administratively.

   This article relates to what we are going over currently in class because it is about bureaucracy and how its changing and affecting our government. The reason the government rarely gets anything done is because it's hard to bring all the good aspects of corporations into the political spectrum without bringing many bad ones. Since bureaucracies are in charge of most of the dirty work in our government they can get it done as slow or fast as they wish with little backlash since they are doing what the government doesn't want to do. They essentially can do whatever, whenever without being affected themselves but in turn affecting the government's productivity.

   I think this article brings light to a subject most people I know aren't talking about. It lets people know all the bad about bureaucracies and how they can be ineffective. This article is important because it also shows that there are people who are looking for reasons why our government isn't working and is trying to find new ways to fix it and turn it into a functioning system that gets stuff done. It also helps people understand how bureaucracies affect the government and what they can do to our lives as citizens apart of this corrupt government. 

Article

   Today the supreme court unanimously decided that children with disabilities should receive more than just the minimum for their education. The case dealt with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 that promised "free appropriate public education" to all children with disabilities. In 2008 Neil Gorsuch was on the tenth circuit court of appeals in Denver, he was on a three-judge panel that ruled in favor of the schools because they were doing "merely more than minimal." The supreme court unanimously decided to reverse the lower court's ruling because ethe minimum was too low and they deserve more. The decision came during day three of Gorsuch's confirmation hearing.

   This relates to what we are going over in class because it not only deals with the court system and it's rulings but it also deals with the constitutionality of laws or rulings. Since judicial review was established by Marbury vs Madison, the courts have had an important role in this country's future. The supreme court also used its power to be the last say in a matter by their ability to overrule a hearing from 2008. It also shows how they are using the law and other acts that have been passed to right the wrongs that have already been done in the past.

   I feel that the supreme court's choice to overrule the original ruling was a good thing. I agree that kids with disabilities should get the same opportunity and ability at an education just like any other kid. Without that, I would have a hard time getting an education since I have ADHD and need accommodations to be able to succeed in learning and getting an education. Even though I am not as bad as some other kids out there, we should all get the same chance and ability at a proper education so we may one day have a stable life beyond school. 

Article

   On Saturday all across the US, the ACLU had training events for protesters. These events were used to inform protesters of their rights while protesting. Around 200,000 people showed up to 2,000 different events all over the US. This is the first event of its kind where an organization is trying to help people learn their rights and how they can protect themselves during a protest or from the law. Its main focus was the first amendment and civil rights for LGBT people. It also did two other things, one of which was launching a site called PeoplePower.org to try and connect protesters across the country. The second thing it did was planning to create "freedom cities"  which will protest against Trump's new immigration laws and bans as well as other things that affect the nation's minorities.

   This relates to what we are going over in class because it is about the people being protected while protesting for civil rights. Protesting is one of the main reasons so many people have rights today. The main way women's suffrage was noticed and given was through protesting. With the protesters having more knowledge of their rights will help out with having fewer people go to jail during protests. These protests have been gaining a lot of attention recently because of the recent election and the police involvement. With informed citizens we have fewer people go to jail or get in trouble while protesting.

   I think this article is a good way to show how we are trying to help protect people who are trying to change America. These events are good for the protesters who believe in something but don't know anything about protesting. This is a good way to get people to protest more for things they believe in. If we had done something like this earlier we would have had fewer problems with protests in the past. I think that getting the public educated about certain things will help us change this nation to be a better place. We still have a long ways to go before we are completely equal but for now, this is a good start.

Article

   On March first, Trump blocked some correspondents from news sources to come and see his meeting or State of the Union Address. Even though some sources like CNN, the New York Times, Politico, and Buzzfeed weren't allowed in other conservative or news sources that supported his new administration like Fox News, Washington Times. Others that were allowed were ABC, CBS, NBC, the Wallstreet Journal, Time, and the Associated Press. Since Trump blocked some news outlets from seeing either event Time and the Associated Press did not attend as a sort of protest against Trump's decision on letting some news outlets attend but not all. Trump did not let some of these news outlets attend because of all the stuff he's had to deal with like all of the leaks that have happened which have affected Trump, his staff, and some of our foreign relations. Even with all the protesting and shaming that is going around about Trump and the news sources who didn't attend there isn't really anything that can be done about it. He simply didn't want them to show up so just by some odd chance another leak didn't happen. 

   This article relates to what we are talking about in our class currently because it is about media. The reason Trump blocked out some of the news sources is because of their roles in the media. They acted as a gatekeeper by keeping news about Trump and his administration at the top of the page. They also acted as a watchdog by digging up things about him and his staff like his connections with Russia and its leader, along with countless other top secret things that have been leaked. The reason none of these news outlets are in trouble is because of the first amendment protecting their right of free speech and press. Since Trump is being watched about twenty-four seven by these news watchdogs, one slip and a sound bite will be made and make him look even worse than he does now.

   I think that there should be a little more restriction on what the news can cover and do to get its stories. I do question why Trump didn't allow certain news sources to come and cover what was going on unless he either has a grudge or something to hide. The fact that top secret information was leaked out to news sources is concerning for how well we are protected from dangers whether they be from the US or from another country. This whole ordeal with Trump not letting a few news sources to cover his meeting and address has been blown up to be bigger than it should be. It isn't a very big deal at all that some sources didn't get coverage they could go cover another story somewhere else that could put light on bigger issues rather than who's allowed coverage or not.

Article


   Since 2014 spending on political campaigns and in congress has gone up quite a bit. Many groups that support tax reform, trade, and retirement security have increased if not doubled their spending on lawmakers in congress. One example is the ACLI has increased its spending from $663,600 in 2014 to around $1.3 million in 2016 towards lawmakers. Some other examples are the IRI going from $139,300 to $223,700, the FSI went from $286,000 to $332,500. These are all examples of how interest groups are trying to influence legislation through funding and donating to lawmakers. These interest groups aren't pouring money into congress just to get a law passed they're trying to get the legislators to have conversations about future laws that could be passed.

   This article relates to what we're talking about in class because it is all about interest group spending. These interest groups are trying to use their money to help with the insider strategy where they get up close and personal with the lawmakers. This strategy isn't used as often as the outsider strategy since it's easier to do and to get what you want. Even though interest groups aren't the main way congressmen and candidates for any political office get their funding they are a good way to get support and votes for their campaign. Interest groups have some influence on legislation whether it be with money or support.

   I think that spending on congress from interest groups has increased is interesting. I understand that they want to voice their opinion and get laws passed, but the amount of money being spent on just getting someone to support your views is almost absurd. Spending upwards of a million dollars just to get a law passed or a candidate elected is almost just wasting money. If you put into perspective with how much was spent on either presidential campaign, Hillary's or Trump's, it seems that it is a proper amount for voicing a concern and opinion. Even though money is the go-to way to get something done in this day and age I think there are better ways to get something done and better things that money could have gone to other than just another congress member.

Article

   This week the third largest political party in Florida dissolved. The Independent party had around 250,000 members, which made it ten times larger than the Libertarian party and fifty times larger than the Green party. Some say the numbers are inflated because the actual number of voters is lower than the number of registered voters. This is because people didn't want to affiliate with a party but accidentally put Independent instead. The start of the purge dates back to 2014 when they didn't do a tax audit with a certified public accountant. When the party's account couldn't afford the CPA it dissolved. 

   This relates to what we're doing in class because it's about political parties. Supporting a party is important because it can help them with things like tax audits or funding for campaigns. Since most of the registered voters didn't actually support them, they didn't get a lot of funding and had to dissolve into nothing. Even though it was only a third party, the support wasn't really enough for it to keep a big status against the other parties. The loss of this party isn't very big since it was only a small third party that didn't have much political impact.

   I believe they deserve what they got because they should have found a way to resolve the problem before it ended them. Since they didn't do their tax audit correctly they got penalized. If you can't pay the penalty you should be punished but I think dissolving the entire party was a bit harsh. If they either had more time or got better staff and support they might still be around. Even though they are gone now they might make an appearance later on or at least be mentioned in a history book somewhere.

Article

   On Tuesday a North Carolina state panel up held part of  a new law that took power away from the new governor. The ruling was to temporarily halt the need for legislative approval on his cabinet candidates.The limits on Governor Roy Cooper's power were set by the former state governor and state government, which is mostly Republican in both chambers, right before the November election. The governor did this to handicap the next governor so they couldn't do much without consulting the general assembly first. Since the law was put into effect Mr. Cooper has filed a lawsuit and a panel of judges are considering his case because they say he has shown likelihood of success in his challenge. He has till May to continue appointing cabinet members until he needs notify lawmakers of his selections.

   This relates to what we are talking about in class by showing how political ideology and beliefs can effect a government. Since the government at the moment is mostly Republican and orthodox they don't agree with the new changes that were going to be made to the government and the state. The clash of these two political beliefs made one side act in an unprofessional manner and they passed a law that limited the powers of the next governor, who is Democratic. Another reason this ties into what we're covering in class is the different types of voters. This wouldn't of happened if voters payed attention to the names on the ballots and maybe got informed once in a while we wouldn't have a screwed up government.

   I think that Roy Cooper's decision to fight back against a heavily orthodox and republican general assembly for his powers back is a smart idea. Even if there is a lacking of a liberal presence in our state government, Cooper should still be able to carry out his duties even if the opposite party wants to be childish and handicap him just because he's Democratic and they don't have the same values or visions for this states future. In my honest opinion the states should be a little more like the federal government so that problems like this wouldn't happen often or ever.