A Belated Unit One Post
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/03/25
In a very short period of time Edward Snowden has become one of the most famous, or infamous, names in the country. Some liken him to a saint, others call him a treasonous #^%$&@. But regardless of your personal convictions, any internet-savvy person over the age of ten was shocked and appalled to find out the extent to which the US federal government has been monitoring us and infringing upon our privacy. Personally, I find the practice to be offensive and dictatorial. I'm disgusted that Americans have this kind of power over other Americans, and I think it needs to be stopped. Even Obama disapproves of the extent to which the NSA has taken this form of counterintelligence, with his administration calling on the NSA to give everyone a little bit more breathing room. However, this actually happening doesn't seem very likely. In fact, bills are circulating, but would never pass, that would allow the NSA even more power! As it is they have nearly unlimited power, as long as their actions can be justified in the name of national security. At this point, the nation is already sliding headfirst down a slippery slope toward an Orwellian dystopia. I'm not sure how much hope there is that America can turn itself around, but I really hope we can.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Saturday, March 22, 2014
An Expansion of Implied Powers?
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-supreme-court-considers-environment-presidential-power/1858384.html
Jim Malone's February 24th article on Voice of America introduces readers to an ongoing Supreme Court battle to determine the extent of the president's power regarding the environment. While environmentally centered bills float in and out of congress almost continuously, the bills rarely have any success. This is partially due to the polarized nature of politicians: the democrats generally are all for new regulations and higher standards, and the republicans see this as a hinderance upon free enterprise and a great unnecessary burden on corporations. But some have argued that this is not within the government's power, and certainly not a power to be held by one man. Those concerned don't have a huge problem with Obama himself having this power, it's down the road that they are worried about.
I believe that they have a very valid argument. No one knows what the issues will be regarding the environment in 50 years, conceding this power solely to the executive branch could be a very slippery slope, especially when considering how fast technology seems to be moving these days. Clearly something needs to be done regarding pollution, but I do not think this is the answer. The Republican party needs to get its act together, not just thinking about major corporations, but the health and safety of Americans, and compromise on some of these bills before the president has a good argument to get himself a large chunk of power.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released at some point in June, but currently the Court seems very divided.
Jim Malone's February 24th article on Voice of America introduces readers to an ongoing Supreme Court battle to determine the extent of the president's power regarding the environment. While environmentally centered bills float in and out of congress almost continuously, the bills rarely have any success. This is partially due to the polarized nature of politicians: the democrats generally are all for new regulations and higher standards, and the republicans see this as a hinderance upon free enterprise and a great unnecessary burden on corporations. But some have argued that this is not within the government's power, and certainly not a power to be held by one man. Those concerned don't have a huge problem with Obama himself having this power, it's down the road that they are worried about.
I believe that they have a very valid argument. No one knows what the issues will be regarding the environment in 50 years, conceding this power solely to the executive branch could be a very slippery slope, especially when considering how fast technology seems to be moving these days. Clearly something needs to be done regarding pollution, but I do not think this is the answer. The Republican party needs to get its act together, not just thinking about major corporations, but the health and safety of Americans, and compromise on some of these bills before the president has a good argument to get himself a large chunk of power.
A decision from the Supreme Court is expected to be released at some point in June, but currently the Court seems very divided.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Let Everyone Vote in the Primaries.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-my-wordchoice-edwards-20140303,0,1678746.story
The primaries are a major part of the election. Millions of dollars are spent wining, dining, and wooing people that could potentially help them get into the white house, or any other government position. If you don't do well in the primaries, you can't make it. Candidates often just reiterate their party platform in an effort to win over the party. The ideas and plans they spew in debates and interviews may not be anything even remotely close to their own ideas. In the primaries, all they need to do is win their party. This hardly seems fair.
The idea of this article is to have an "open primary" so that the candidates would have to appeal to everyone, not just democrats OR republicans. Then the top two from that primary, regardless of party, would be in the running for the presidency. In theory, it seems like there would still always be a democrat and a republican in the running, which negates any argument against the idea.
Whether we like it or not, America is stuck in a two-party system. Regardless of what party one may be registered within, the presidential candidates will always be a democrat and a republican. Therefore, everyone should get a say in who will be on the ballot. The decisions made in the primary are just as important, and affect just as many people, as the election in November.
The primaries are a major part of the election. Millions of dollars are spent wining, dining, and wooing people that could potentially help them get into the white house, or any other government position. If you don't do well in the primaries, you can't make it. Candidates often just reiterate their party platform in an effort to win over the party. The ideas and plans they spew in debates and interviews may not be anything even remotely close to their own ideas. In the primaries, all they need to do is win their party. This hardly seems fair.
The idea of this article is to have an "open primary" so that the candidates would have to appeal to everyone, not just democrats OR republicans. Then the top two from that primary, regardless of party, would be in the running for the presidency. In theory, it seems like there would still always be a democrat and a republican in the running, which negates any argument against the idea.
Whether we like it or not, America is stuck in a two-party system. Regardless of what party one may be registered within, the presidential candidates will always be a democrat and a republican. Therefore, everyone should get a say in who will be on the ballot. The decisions made in the primary are just as important, and affect just as many people, as the election in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)