Policy Project

The United States environmental policy is the federal government’s involvement in the environment to preserve it for future generations without involving and impacting the general public. Even though many indications have been made about global warming, United States has not made a nation wide effort to addresses this problem, but rather individuals on a personal basis have been attempting to solve this environmental issue. The environment is part of the American people, and as a people we need to address it as a federal issue. I think especially with a new presidential election coming, we need to address laws and policies where citizens collectively can make a difference. First and foremost, the lack of oil and emissions of cars. The scarcity of oil and prices have increased, and the emissions of cars are still harming our ozone layer. A policy should be made on the structure and type of cars allowed on the road. Gas guzzlers cannot keeping ripping the roads. We should set a deadline and work toward a goal. Families with unsuitable cars for the environment can work toward a payment plan to switch cars. There should also be a rule on how many cars per household. Secondly, recycling and the cleaning of the air and local natural sites. Recycling has grown and expanded, but we need to expand it even further. Every home owns their own trash cans, but what if each room of each building had trashcans certified for recycling purposes. Also, student volunteers in high school and grade school complete numerous amounts of hours each year. A requirement should be made, for students to donate their time, to environmental pursuits.

Asking for Voter Identification

I read an article from the LA Times called,“Supreme Court will hear voter ID Case” by David Savage questions whether voters should show driver’s licenses or passports at the polls. Republicans believe this will prevent fraud. While Democrats argue it will deter voting of minorities, the poor, and elderly. Only a few states have adopted this including Indiana, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and Missouri. The only problem for people, who agree with the ID, is that you cannot clearly prove the fraud that has decreased within voting or even whether it has stayed consistent or increased the number of ineligible voters.
I think this issue is especially important because of the presidential campaign right now. After the election of 2000 with Bush and Gore, voting has to be edited and more uniformed for all states, rather than an individual practice of each one. I remember a couple of weeks before Christmas break how Gwaltney had showed the class, the amount of suggestions that had been declared to make this problem not a big concern for future elections. Voting is a right, but there are too many ways where it can be manipulated and not represent the true opinion of a concerned American. The previous caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire show that this presidential campaign is not predictable by any means, and if problems in voting don’t provide a justified election, fingers will be pointed from all angles not just two like the presidential election between Bush and Gore.

California's Very Own Death Penalty

My editorial talks about reforming the death penalty and how California’s system currently is dysfunctional and needs reform. One problem of the death penalty is that it is overseen by Supreme Court. The seven justices of California’s Supreme Court are not adequate to solve the death penalty’s system within our state and answer the many petitions of our state as well. The editor proposed that instead of excursively having the supreme court reform the death penalty, the court should be allowed to obtain the capital case workload. This amendment allows Supreme Court to still have authority without all the work falling on their shoulders. Cases would hear and finished at a faster and more accurate pace than the current system. At the end of the article the author states three issues that must also be addressed to make this amendment a reality: funding is needed for an adequate number of prosecutors and defense attorneys, increased staff on court appeals, and lastly death penalties habeas corpus must be reconsidered.
I think the amendment is logical for the state of California. The death penalty within our state has been running with too many loop holes for inaccuracy and false accusation and has been at fault for not giving an equal and fair trial to all not just one side. Its important to see that the death penalty can’t be solved with one amendment but has to be reformed from all supporting sides as well.

Oprah for President

Recently, Oprah has accompanied Obama on many public campaigns incluuding one that occured this week at Universal Citywalk. One article i read, talked about Oprah’s presence within Obama’s campaigns especially in Iowa. There was a fifty minute rally to promote Obama’s campaign. Oprah delivered a speech of her own, claiming she had no influence but to promote people to take action in the following election. She even included Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war and aroused a standing ovation from the audience. Oprah according to mass media is one of the most powerful celebrities of this day and era.I think that Oprah will definitely be a successful person to promote and publicize the positive aspects of Obama within his campaign. Even though she is not directly telling and convincing her fans, to vote for Obama, her acceptance and support for the candidate is a huge statement publicly. Personally I don’t think its correct to use a public figure like Oprah within politics. I remember a couple years ago, the band Dixie Chicks expressed their discontent with President Bush and suffered consequences, but should these be carried over for celebrities supporting political figures as well? what makes Oprah different from other celebrities? Many people can say I have my own views, but people in the public eye such as Oprah can always have an Influence.

Political Parties Shifting to Different Directions

Recently, in ap gov we talked about political parties and the drastic switch from one to the other. Last time this happened, we didn't even exist, and now it is happening right before our eyes.The the switch of popularity of liberalism, and not just any type, specifically gentry liberals. Gentry liberals reflect interests and values of affluent people of globalization and economy. It strongholds are within New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, and West Los Angeles. The rank of the affluent class has grown, resulting in this ideology’s popularity. The number of millionaires in the United States rose 26%. The reason for this increase in democratic majority is because it controls the wealthy majority. It has also a large presence on the internet. It also discusses that now both parties do not represent the middle or working classes, but the elite. Since the conservative and liberal are parts of the elite and affluent majority of the population, how do lower and working classes get represented? This shift of parties brought up the point that this transition in power has also significantly ignored a large group of people, the people below the elite are not represented at all. So if you consider yourself a liberal, are you really a liberal does your party really respresent you? Its kind of weird to think something that you believe changes without the core of the party's consent, their followers.

Information from the blog is referenced from the article, “the Gentry Liberals” by Joel Kotkin and Fred Siegal is an editorial from the LA Times. :)

Take a Lead Requires more than Being a Good Politician

Gwaltney had talked about in class how when one canidate starts to get a lead, things get a little nasty on campaigns. Candidates attacking other candidates within the presidential elections through private and personal matters. For example, Romney went Christmas shopping with his grandchildren to display more dedication to his family, as a campaign against Giuliani. Then Giuliani had uncovered some criminal records of Romney. With New Hampshire Primary six weeks away, candidates are doing anything to influence the public for a vote.I thought it's interesting because it discussed how the campaigns took a different turn with primaries coming up. Now that the candidates are officially in the race, they are attacking every weak point to get ahead. And then the whole issue on hilary. All the other democratic canidates are getting a little cruel about Hilary. With comments and personal attacks they take the only women canidate down anyway they can and did i mention she's on top with a lead. Yes a lead makes things a little complicated. What do you think, is it immature, should politicians just focus on themselves and how they can improve the country or should they step over someone to get ahead?

Tax on Smokers or Tax on Snacks for Healthcare

Note to any one who has read my past two posts, I tried to post something last week but it didn't come up on my blog, that's why there are two posts for today, November 12th.

You guys all know the new legislature of tax on smokers for the funding of healthcare, well recently I read an editorial claiming to tax something else to fight healthcare on all terms. The editorial pointed out that not only is it a tax but initially a way to make smoking less desirable for "nicotine enthusiasts". Smokers make up 13.3 % of adults according to the California Department on health. The tax can reduce smokers and increase funding for healthcare, aiding health on all levels.
The author then recalls her introduction of obesity as a serious health issue. Unlike smoking which is discouraged within public places, cars, and even the work place, obesity is not given enough attention. She is promoting a tax on snacks, if the tax has the same effect on smokers, it will correlated to obesity as well. Junk food is a major source of the weight on American healthcare , presently. According to the author, “ It finally would force junk food to contribute to healthcare instead of just weighing on the system”(1).
Her article was not only funny but true. Healthcare can be fought at many angles, and with one legislation working double duty, that just might be the trick. Obesity has been talked within the media, and within education, but the choices are still directed to the people. With taxes, the choice is threatened to pick the fructose filled, overly fried, and sugar coated snack to funding for healthcare. Tax on smokers was smart, but taxing on snacks is even better.