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.

Seperation of Church and State , Creating Loop Holes

I read an article last week, talking about the church and clergy abusing donations for their own benefits. Are donations really becoming a blessing or a burden? Did you ever wonder where the money goes when you drop five bucks during the offetory?A senate committee is investigating, but one key issue is coming up the separation of church and state. The separation not only means church influences out of politics but politics out of the church............... right? Or is that just what we assume?
Senate of finances committee sent letters to six high profile churches requesting a record of salaries, expenses accounts, credit cards, etc. According to senate, “churches are no different to other nonprofit groups they have to abide by tax rules”(1).
Part of the difficulty of these issues, is that some churches run as enterprises. Another problem is the fact that nonprofit organization has to send documents with details about their expenses to the IRS, while religious institutions are exempt.
Even though churches are separate when it comes to politics, does that mean they are exempt from rules and regulations from government that everyone has to follow? I think religious institution should be treated like nonprofits, otherwise the money will not be documented and in some cases used and abused.
After all “church and state were never about giving churches the ability to break the law”(2). Do you think churches should be looked upon a little closer according to their finances?

Local governments have been fighting against global warming instead of the nation as a whole. Even though it may seem like the country is only examining the problem now, local governments and communities have strived for the ozone long before the nation's government has. Examples such as governor of New York making regulations of carbon dioxide emissions, and Gov. Schwarzenegger filing a lawsuit against Environmental Protection Agency for not going through with efforts to restrict emissions of Carbon Dioxide from cars and trucks.
The states are hoping to pressure Congress to move toward a national mandatory emission program. California’s lawsuit is intended to make Washington reconsider about environmental issues. For two years, California has been seeking permission to put its own regulations on cars and trucks, which can go under the Clean Air Act. The automobile industry does not want California to create the standards or even get the authority. Federal courts, more and more are coincide with California’s new laws and regulations on the emissions. Last month, federal government of Vermont argued that automakers are fully capable of abiding by California’s standards.
The only comfort, federal governments have is the fact that “ president bush agreed global warming is a problem and he cares about it.” One practical way to show his concern is to grant the California its waiver and get behind efforts in Congress to control emissions. Its interesting that the media portrays the United States for not doing enough, but really we are doing enough separately, it’s the problem of Uniting the country under congress, to pass national acts to save the environment. I personally think the country should go national to make a better impact, sure everyone can make a difference in a small way, but in order to make an apparent difference, a larger group of people need to participate or become more aware.

Polls How Legitimate are They?

Today in AP Gov, Mr. Gwaltney was discussing polls and what an influential role it plays for politicians from all spectrums. It even provides the oracle from the politician to what people want and what their beliefs are. I thought it was interesting how valuable these polls are, and so important that presidents in the past have funded people to establish polls for their personal benefit and gain. Do you think polls are always a good way to predict people's views and opinions, to especially someone as influential as presidential canidates? Not only are polls helpful to important issues and policies, the simple approval of president by the American people is one that has been updated quite frequently. My reaction to all of this change in politics of blogs, polls, and youtube speeches, is the fact that are we going to believe everything that is presented to us as legitimate, or are they not the best sources to fall back on. I checked out one of the common website for polls : pollster.com, this website shows a bunch of popular polls that feed into the website almost monthly. One interesting one that really caught my eye is whether truthfully we like or dislike the president. Do you approve? See if your opinion is well represented in the poll.http://www.pollster.com/presbushapproval.php

Iraq Interpreters, Our Secret Soldiers

Iraq interpreters go on patrol with U.S. troops without weapons and lead secret lives to defend against insurgents who could take their lives, or people are close to them. Their job plays triple what any Iraqi company would, but the risk they undergo is dangerous and life threatening at every second of the day. They don’t reveal their names, don’t allow photos to be taken of them, and basically “live like phantoms”. The situation is Iraq holds the truth and harsh reality, “ Every interpreter, if he stays in Iraq will get killed”.
This problem is unjust but the solution to escape is a long undependable process. They have a long process for citizenship, in this case to the United States. They must obtain a letter of recommendation from a general before they can submit visa applications. That alone can take months. According to Army Captain Chris Sanchez of Los Angeles, “ They want to be Americans. They’re doing more to fight the war on terror than most Americans.”
Imagine families dependant on an interpreter for their well being. Having a father everyday risk his life, to earn money to escape the country. After all this suffering, it may seem questionable why people would want to be put at such risks. It’s simply two answers, money and the idea of reform or renewal in Iraq. Interpreters are on our side, defending our nation, and should be aided and guided to citizenship. They’re at risk and should be able to receive the price they pay. Do you think United States should change the system? Should they help these people who are fighting for our country against terror?

Younger Voters, How Our Vote might Actually Influence Canidates

Canidates are trying to persuade younger audiences to be present at presidential caucuses. In the past two caucuses, “ 65% of participants were older than fifty”. Why the sudden concern for the younger audience of the electing citizens?..... even potential citizens as young as seventeen year olds? Campaigns are taking advantaged of an easily persuaded group of voters . For example according to an article fromMSNBC.com titled, "Democrats seek support from Iowa 17 year olds", Iowa is allowing seventeen year olds to vote if they’ll be eighteen by election day, November 4, 2008.
They are trying to find the leaders of the schools that easily influence students, such as student body president, the quarterback, and newspaper chief editor etc. It’s interesting how candidates are basing Iowa off a popularity contest that would originally take place in high school, but is now used to candidates' benefits.
Obama has drawn huge crowds at colleges in Iowa, according to Obama’s spokesperson, “ The key for us is building an organization that can harness that enthusiasm and turn it into support”. Since Iowa has a small percentage of voters, young and newcomers alike can swerve for any party’s favor.This article actually put out the point that younger audience can persuade a state to one party or the other; and even give a candidate a leading head start in the presidential race. Which states do you think can be easily manipulated if the youth are generation take charge and vote? With a good number of states that can go to either party, the younger voting party which includes the majority of high school seniors, have a brighter future ahead of them, as far as their vote and how much it can influence a canidate.

9/11 is over, We need a President for 9/12

I read an editorial called 9/11 is over by Thomas Friedman from the New York Times. He discussed the issue of American presidential canidates, focusing on 9/11 rather than the future or as he puts it 9/12. He states that our country has become “The United States of Fighting Terrorism” , not a country that represents what it used to be before. Did our country change its ideals and what it represented for its citizens after the terrorist attacks? I definatly think, canidates should focus on the future not how the past has been or how bad it really was. He mentioned a little excerpt from the satirical newspaper the Onion, that ran a fake newsletter potraying Guilliani, as a canidate, " If elected, Giuliani would inherit the duties of current 9/11 President George W. Bush, including making grim facial expressions, seeing the world’s conflicts in terms of good and evil, and carrying a bullhorn at all state functions.” Is it true that canidates are picking up where Bush left off, or are canidates making a distinction betweent the new presidential term in office. Is our country ready for a change, or are we guilty of looking back than looking forward. This article brought up the interesting point, of whether presidential canidates look more to the past or future when it comes to propaganding their beliefs on issues to the American people. Right now one main focus is healthcare an issue that has been not focused enough on, and now getting its time. Another point friedman, put out was how America had lost tourists and accoding to Dr. Dow from the TRavel Industry Association," Only the U.S. is losing traveler volume among major countries, which is unheard of in today’s world". We all can agree 9/11 has changed America, but did it change what we stand for, did it take our original focus from the people of the nation and their liberties for 9/12, into the past of 9/11.

Congress decreasing in Power

I read an editorial last week that discussed the decreasing powers of Congress. Since the topic of withdrawl of troops has become popular, the question of whether Democrats are trying to revive Congress’ power is becoming evident. The democratic majority lacks the political power to compel President Bush to bring troops home, but has power to cut finances for the war. Unless the antiwar forces in the Senate can gain sixty votes, according to last Friday was twelve votes short, the Bush presidency will drag on the war.
The Democrats main argument is the fact that the executive branch is becoming stronger and the powers of Congress are decreasing. Congress hasn’t “ declared a war since 1941 and hasn’t gone to mat with the president over any war since Vietnam”. After World War II president have ignored the War Powers Act of 1973 which in plain terms spells out Congress and their influences. Before Americans favored this style of government, especially during the Atomic Age when consulting the congress over nuclear weapons was inconvenient. Most preferred to have a president in charge of national security.
This article brought the controversy of America’s transition of Congressional Powers after September 11th and the War in Iraq. In the atomic era, having a strong executive branch was necessary, but not it seems limiting and not a fair representation of the rest of the government. I agree, that Congress made a correct maneuver to put their opinion head first about the war in Iraq. Without congress, the president has no need to negotiate or compromise his decisions. Congress brings both opinions and views to government not just the president representing one. Is congress really becoming the background of our government? Are their opinions or the system of checks and balances effective on congress in this situation?

Does the canidate's view on Religion, change our views?

There was an article, published in the LA Times by Neil Ferguson called "The Risk of President Giuliani"about his religious views and how they conflict with his political views. The article brought awarness of his religious views, according to this quote," "I pray like a lawyer. I try to make a deal: 'Get me out of this jam and I'll start going back to church.' "referring that he was Catholic when he needed to be. To me personally ,religion shouldn't influence a person's view of a canidate. But what if his personal life, his religious views, and political ideas don't coincide with each other? The article was interesting, because if brought to atttention that most Americans take into consideration, the religious background of a canidate. Within the public Giuliani is percieved as the savior of New York after 9/11 and picked the city from its tragedy, but his messy personal life and shaky religious views, should that be taken into consideration? When I was researching some background information of Giuliani, Yahoo News had put a link to Fred Thompson's religious background. Is religion becoming a new aspect that can break or make canidates in country that has a government that seperates church and state?

We the States or We the People?

Last class, my G block AP Government class discussed how valid our vote really is during the presidential elections. Votes from the American citizens are filtered into representatives that necessarily don't always take the majority vote to represent the state. We can be represented through many branches of government, but when it comes down to the main presidential election our votes are altered and become more of a general consensus of a representative than of the people.
I believe the population should represent itself in the presidential elections.By letting a representative of the state take the votes as suggestions rather than actual votes, the people are not clearly represented. This is the reason, for such a large population not participating in the voting polls. How can a president run his or her country, if he or she only knows half the country's opinion? I disagree with the declining power our vote really has, by being filtered through a state representative rather than the people itself. We the people is how the constitution describes about our nation not we the states.
- Jeneeka