Kucinich’s Brother Found Dead

A shocking article revealed that candidate Dennis Kucinich's brother was found dead. The article states that, "Perry Kucinich, 52, was found face down by another brother, Larry, at about 9 a.m., said Powell Caesar, a spokesman for the Cuyahoga County Coroner's office. There were no signs of foul play, Caesar said. An autopsy was being performed Wednesday" (1). It must be extremely difficult for Dennis to have to deal with such a horrible and sudden loss during this time. While things are extremely hectic with the Iowa caucus's coming up on January 3rd it must be very hard for him to continue his politic life up when his home life is very painful. The article says that Perry did have a mental illness and stopped taking his medication, but the results of the autopsy are not revealed yet. I hope that the Kucinich family stays strong in this difficult time of loss.

Poll Finds G.O.P. Field Isn’t Touching Voters

I found an interesting article on a poll done that reveals the interest voters have in the 2008 presidential candidates. First of all, democratic voters seem to be pretty satisfied with their candidates, mostly leaning towards Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. However, i was fascinated when i read this, "Not one of the Republican candidates is viewed favorably by even half the Republican electorate, the poll found. And in a sign of the fluidity of the race, former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, who barely registered in early polls several months ago, is now locked in a tight contest nationally with Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney" (1). It is quite possible that this has changed because this article was published on December 11, 2007, but i still found it shocking that there really is not a Republican candidate who is more favorable than the others. I also read that currently Americans believe the economy is bad and getting worse and that America as a whole is going the wrong way. Therefore, voters are searching for a President to help turn American around and get us back on the right track. Furthermore, a lot of the support of Hilary Clinton can be attributed to the fact that her husband was president. The article states, "The poll confirmed that former President Bill Clinton was an effective campaign weapon for his wife. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters say Mr. Clinton’s involvement will make them more likely to support her. In fact, about as many of Mrs. Clinton’s backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience" (3). Although i think it is cool that her husband was in office, i think that people need to stop associating her with her husband. If she wins, she should be the one that people want, not the wife of the man that people want.

Music for the Candidates

So, music at rallies? Why not? A recent article titled do you know the words to Edwards fight song discusses the importance of music that is heard at rallies. Candidates use the lyrics of the songs to first of all pump up their supporters, but also to display a message. Some of the songs that Edwards included at his rally are, "The music at his rallies includes a cover by Grandaddy of “Revolution” by the Beatles (self-explanatory).I Won’t Back Down (mp3)It also includes “Salt of the Earth” from Beggar’s Banquet by the Rolling Stones. (“Let’s drink to the hard working people; let’s drink to the lowly of birth; Raise your glass to the good and the evil; Let’s drink to the salt of the earth.) There is also “I Won’t Back Down” by Tom Petty (also self-explanatory)" (1). I especially liked the song "Salt of the Earth." I think he is trying to appeal to the working class and people who have to work hard to earn their money. When the song states, let's drink to the hard working people; let's drink to the lowly of birth, i believe he is referring to people who are not born into money. This is a smart tactic and i appreciate how music is played at rallies. It definitely will help get the crowd going and allow for some fun instead of a whole bunch of talking and asking questions. It would be interesting to hear what other candidates have as their choice in music.

The More the Merrier???

So is it really the more the merrier? After looking at the party system in Europe i couldn't help but think, would it be better for us to adopt the European system and have a multiple party system? Well, although it works in Europe, i believe that we should stick to our two party system with other smaller parties. When there are too many parties there are so many options for people to choose from. I think that everyone has their own idea how to run our government. Even though i call myself a Republican, I definitely do not agree with other Republicans on all levels. The more parties we have the more diversity, however whomever is chosen to rule our country would not represent a majority of the populations beliefs. It is important that a lot of people agree with the leaders of a country, or else the leader does not adequately represent their nation. Therefore when we have two parties, a larger portion of the nation will agree with the leader chosen. However, i do think that it is great that in European countries representatives are not just from one party, but divided based off of how many votes they got. Instead of winner take all, if someone got 20 percent of the votes, they would have 20 percent of representation. Yet, Sean brought up an important argument in class. The more parties we have the harder it is to come into agreement. Making compromises would be very difficult and would take a really long time. So basically, when it comes to political parties....the more is not the merrier.

Forget Smokers, Tax snackers

This article is about obesity in the United States and how it attributes to high health care and demands for people who get diabetes and need a lot of medical attention because of obesity. It also talks about how we should tax snack foods and make them less desirable for people to buy. It states, “According to oft-cited research published in the journal Obesity, the annual cost to the state of medical care attributable to obesity is estimated to be almost $7.7 billion. If every man, woman and child in California put $200 into a fund on a yearly basis, that wouldn't be enough to cover that tab. And that's just what the state spends.” It also furthermore goes to explain, “I have a motto: Alliteration makes for good legislation. So we can sell the snack tax like this: Tack 10 cents onto anything beige, battered or bite-sized.The obesity epidemic is a serious health crisis. Even cockroaches are coming down with Type 2 diabetes. And it's all from -- surprise -- the food we eat. Fast food. Fried food. Sugary food. High-fructose corn syrup. It's in abundance, and its super cheap. We've overindulged, and it's driving up healthcare costs each year.”
Over all, I think this is a bad idea. If people want junk food, that means they are addicted to it and will eat it no matter the cost. They will do what it takes to buy the extra bag of cheetos and the box of donuts. Furthermore, obesity is most common amoung the poorer people who do not have enough money as it is. If we want to help, we should promote better eating habits and lower the cost of healthier foods.

Clinton Energy Plan Includes Push for Higher Gas Mileage

This article is about Senator Clinton wanting to push for higher gas mileage. This would in turn increase energy efficiency and help the environment. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday released her plan to combat climate change and to increase energy efficiency, which includes raising fuel standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030 and creating five million jobs through renewable energy advancements. Furthermore, Clinton’s idea would include, “Mrs. Clinton called for reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. She also called for a “cap and trade” auction system in which businesses would buy allowances to pollute, creating incentives to reduce emissions or to limit energy use.” (1).Over all, I like what I am hearing. Even though I am a Republican, Hilary Clinton is doing a good job appealing to a lot of different people. I am a firm believer in protecting the environment, especially from global warming. I think that if we have a President like Clinton who actually cares about the environment, unlike Bush, then we will make more laws helping save the earth. Carbon emissions are polluting our atmosphere and something needs to be done about that, and very soon.

Make No Child Honest

I recently read an article called, "Make No Child Honest." It is about education and how we definetly need to improve it in our country (i agreee). The author talks about how the No Child Left Behind Act has helped draw the light on education and the schools we have in the United States. A really interesting question he asked was, ” Still, how can one like a law so badly framed and rigidly constructed that it erects unfair and unreachable standards, encourages schools to ignore the children most in need of help, labels many a fine school as failing, and has the perverse effect of shrinking history, science and arts education and badly cutting into programs for gifted kids?” I agree with this! Even though the law is really bad, there are some things good with this. He also mentioned this, “There's one other essential flaw in the act that Miller does not address: It still aims to bring all students up to proficiency by 2014. Let's face it. The nation will never make all of its students academically proficient, as long as proficiency is a reasonably high standard. That's like saying all Americans will be above average. Continued growth is realistic; so is narrowing the shameful gap in achievement between white and minority students. Academic stardom for all is not. The public will not trust this law until it at least is honest.”Over all, I believe that we do need to make the NO Child honest. This was a really good article and I think that education needs to be fixed. Children are the future of our country and if we are not well educated, then our coutry will fall apart. It is important that we fix our public school system and make sure that everyone is getting adequate education and the proper materials needed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-nclb28oct28,0,5805070.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

Why are WE so Liberal?

So after being in AP Government for the past few classes and starring off at the board across from my seat, I catch myself looking at the grid that shows that 138 of us (AP Gov students) fell into the bottom left quadrant of the political spectrum. I thought this was very interesting because like Mr. Gwaltney talked about in class, this does not represent America at all. In fact, a majority of our presidential candidates from the past as well as current day candidates are the exact opposite, upper right-ers. So i wondered, is this because we are not fully developed and clueless about what we believe, or is it that our generation is going to majorly change the future political world.
If we maintain these beliefs and all stay true to what we said in class, then it seems to me that the future will have drastic changes. What would our government be like if our president was from the bottom left quadrant? However, more importantly is why were so many of us down there to begin with. I guess the only explanation i can think of is that we socially are liberals (well at least i am.) Since i am not working and do not have to pay taxes, i do not really have experience with having the government suck away a large portion of my income. Therefore, sure lets have universal health-care and support the less fortunate with welfare and programs to benefit the needy. BUT...when the time comes for us to open our own pockets and fork up the cash, we might think otherwise. So economically, at our young age, we want all people be have equal opportunity and those who are poor and seem to be suffering we, as loving teenagers looking to make a better world, want to support them. Furthermore, when it comes to our morals and beliefs, a majority of us are for gay rights and pro-choice. I think we are born in a time where a lot of us want freedoms for all people (gay, straight, lesbian, pregnant, black, white), or at least i would hope so. This would support that fact that 138 out of I believe around 154 or so AP Gov students are left liberals.
All in all, I say it is great that we are liberal and want our government to support the needy and we want equal rights and to protect women, gays, etc... I believe that our government is not successful how it is, so why not bring about some change? I say lets see what happens when we try installing universal health care, a democratic pushed program. I say we should just VOTE so that those 138 of us don't go unheard. (I know we are not old enough yet, but when we are 18 i hope all of us do) :)

Gore For President, Guess Not

When asked if he would partake in the 2008 presidential elections, Al Gore said No. Despite his growth in popularity after making the well known film titled, "The Inconvenient Truth," and accomplishment of receiving the Nobel Piece Prize, Gore is no longer interested in running for president. He says he now has other interests, such as the fight to inform and bring about change in regards to dealing with global warming. I believe he has done an amazing job broadcasting the effects of Global Warming. Although it is not definite as to whether or not Global Warming is indeed true, a large part as to why i believe in it has to do with Al Gore. His movie was an awakening and brought about a lot of change in my household. My dad told a bunch of people about the movie, changed all of our lights to fluorescent and over all is more aware of the environment. Al Gore brought a topic that was slowly gaining interest to life by attaching his well known face to it. Basically, people already knew him from when he ran for President, so they trusted in what he was saying. However, in regards to running for President, in a poll taken it was determined that, "(people) asked if they would like to see Gore run for president in 2008, people said no by a margin of 54 percent to 41 percent, according to the Gallup Poll, about the same as in March, when people opposed his running by 57 percent to 38 percent (2)" Obviously he has gained some popularity, but not tremendously. I think that his decision to not run for President was a good one. He is doing an excellent job promoting saving the earth and catering to our environment. His achievement in receiving the Nobel Piece Prize is amazing, however, it does not immediately make him eligible to be the next President.

So, Why Don't We Vote??

So, it's pretty obvious that a large portion of eligible voters fail to represent themselves in the polls, but the real question is why? Why don't people go out and just vote? I mean it probably takes only an hour out of their lives. If they live in a country that exists for and by the people, then why do so many people fail to make it to the polls. In a recent article by Ariel Alexovic titled, " 2006 Voter Analysis," she stated, The 24-page analysis highlighted the poor turnout of youth voters — those ages 18 to 29 made up about 20 percent of the eligible voting population but only 10 percent of voters" (1). This shocked me because they are numbers regarding us, the youth. Furthermore, this article went to explain that the people voting are most commonly white, upper class males. If we want to hear more voices besides those who are "white, male, and in power," then more people who are part of minorities need to vote. Especially those who are young and are the future of America.

However, in response to my first question, Why don't we vote? Michael Slater, deputy director of Project Vote, addressed this in the article by saying:“It’s fair to say that people are engaged in politics when politics engage their interests, and when we see large sections stay out of politics, it means politics are not speaking to their issues and values” (2.) Basically, instead of blaming the people, like we almost always do, he is blaming politics. I found this fascinating because it is very true. If for example the presidential candidates talked about topics that interested more people, then more people would be inclined to make and stand and vote. However, if nothing appeals to them or their circumstances, they will not bother to waste their hour of their life to go and vote. They need to have passion of topics and candidates in order to go out and make the difference, or cast their vote. So, i definitely agree with Michael Slater when he said that "politics aren't speaking to their issues and values."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/2006-voter-analysis/

Top Political Values

For the past few classes we have been discussing political values and morals. I thought it was fascinating how we rated the fourteen political values on the board from our most important to our least important. Personally, I believe that having tolerance towards others is most important. Take what happened in Germany in World War II for example. Hitler's anti-semitism caused the death of millions of Jewish people. I know that is taking it to the extreme, but basically being open and accepting to others opinions is extremely important. We need to realize that even though we might think we know everything, we really do not. It is important to stay open minded and accept the beliefs of others. That is how we bring about change. By hearing what others have to say and seeing what their experience in life has taught them, we can evolve as a community and grow. When we close ourselves off and judge others we are really limiting our own capacity of knowledge. Furthermore, i also agree that having respect to the law and not to the individual is very important. The laws were created by many people and with the mindset that our nation is to be a democratic one made by the people and for the people. They created laws we need to follow in order to maintain a working government. If we follow the individual instead of the law, we are leaving ourselves open to totalitarian governments and not following through with our belief in a democracy. Although the president has power, the system of checks and balances keep his power in order with the rest of the branches of government. When we listen to people instead of the law, dictators may rise up and hold too much power. Lastly, i believe in making sure our justice system works! If people are not punished for certain actions, then they have no reason to stop doing them. There needs to be a disincentive to killing, stealing, littering. Basically, a government needs many aspects in order to run smoothly. However, i firmly believe that some of the most important are tolerance towards others, focus on law verses individual, and justice.

Rising Health Costs!!

Everyone seems to have their own say and their own twist on how our government needs to take control of the lack of health care offered to citizens of the United States. As it is known, Democratic candidates want universal health care for all people, while the opposing Republican candidates have an alternate plan. Basically, democrats want to put in more money from the federal government to help provide health care. However, although providing health care brings forth a heated debate, there is also a bigger issue at hand, which is the rising cost of health care. Furthermore, a Republican candidate, Rudolph Giuliani wants to lower taxes, which will in turn allow employees to pay for private health care instead of getting it from their employers. He hopes to move away from the system where employers supply employees with health care. On the other hand, Republican candidate Mitt Romney wants the states to have more decision-making ability and have the people be able to deduct their out-of-pocket expenditures.
Basically, I thought this was a fascinating article because it really reveals the major points of each main Republican and Democratic presidential candidate. However, the author also talks about how expensive health care now is. If we lower the costs of health care, I don’t know how exactly, then we will be able to better provide health care for all United States citizens. I remember watching a movie done by the same guy who made "Supersize Me." He was homeless for some time and just a simply injury of hurting his wrist made him go from making the bills to basically living in debt. A visit to the health clinic was around $200 alone and since he had to work during the day he could not go to the free health clinic in his neighborhood. The $200 visitation fee to see a doctor put him back and with the money it cost to wrap up his wrist, he was at a loss as to how he was going to pay the bills. After seeing this money and learning about health care, i definitely agree the health care prices need to be lowered and the government should have a part in supplying health care for its citizens.

Tax Cuts Anyone?

Senator Barack Obama, one of the democratic candidates running for President, proposed a tax cut that would reduce taxes for the middle class and elderly. Although I believe that reducing taxes might be benificial for individuals struggling with having enough money to support their family, I do not agree with his plan to increase the amount of money wealthier individuals have to pay.

Democrats think that wealth should be evenly distributed while Republicans believe that they earned their money, so wealthy people should not have to give it away to others. This does not mean that Republicans are selfish and not willing to help our country, but the parties just have differing opinions. Well that is at least what i believe being a Republican :) On September 18, 2007, Barrack proposed a plan to cut down taxes for the middle class and elderly up to eighty billion dollars a year. His means of paying for these tax cuts would be to raise capital gains taxes on the wealthy. He hopes to reach out to the working middle class Americans and show his support for them. He wants to make the gap between the rich and poor smaller instead of widening as it is now. One of the most interesting statements was, “later, aides said the top rates would be 20 percent to 28 percent. Most people now pay 15 percent on capital gains, with lower-income people eligible for a 5 percent rate.” (1) I thought this statement was very interesting, but definitely unfair. The jump from fifteen to twenty-eight is huge.

I see Obama’s speech and plan to lower taxes for the middle class and elderly as a way of getting more voters. He is appealing to the general public because he knows that a majority of Americans are in the middle class. However, I do not think that making the upper class pay more is just. They worked very hard for their money and enough of it is already being taken out of their paycheck. Imagine working for an hour only to have about a little more than a third of it taken away. And what about all the talk about providing universal health care? Who will pay for that? Of course, wealthy Americans through their tax dollars. Yes i agree the gap between the rich and poor should be closed, but it isn't easy seeing money well earned being forked over to the government.

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19obama.html

Our Government needs to take action in the fight to prevent further Global Warming

Global warming. Fact or Fiction? After attending several conferences, where professors working at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) gave lectures about the effects of global warming, I am now a firm believer that global warming is indeed a fact. Just look at the weather. Last month while I was in Spain, the Thames River in London over flowed while other parts of Europe struggled with temperatures in the 120 °F. After sitting in the sun all day, my car is so hot that I need to wait a few minutes before I drive if I want to save my fingers from third degree burns. The world around us is changing, whether we accept it or not. So, when is our government going to do something about this?
After reading Josef Herbert’s article, “Governors Seek Action on Global Warming,” it was apparent that individual states are working to increase awareness and make changes in the hopes of decreasing greenhouse gases. By doing so, governors are hoping that the federal government will see eye to eye with the separate states and start taking action. So far, twelve states are working to limit the amount of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by auto-vehicles, with hopes that many more states will follow.
It is about time that the Bush administration accepts global warming and does something, anything, to help prevent it. In my opinion, even if global warming is fiction, like some scientists claim, what is the harm in helping protect our ozone layer and nurture the environment? We only have one world to live on, and the constant abuse of over population is putting pressure on our limited resources and acts as a threat to our future. In ten or twenty years when the younger generation starts to have families and children, what will the earth be like then? Although preventing global warming would be a costly project and not to mention extremely difficult, changes must be made in order to protect the earth. The United States, one of the most powerful nations, needs to get their act together as a nation instead of separate states and take this problem seriously. At least state governments and governors are working to prevent global warming. Hopefully, the upcoming elections will result in a new President whose concern for the government is far greater than what Bush has shown.