For or Against Affirmative Action

Daily Bruin
Standford.edu
Harvard Politics

Affirmative action is a controversial issue in today's policy making. Some say that affirmative action is a necessity in today's world full of racism. While others say that affirmative action is just extending the existence of racial prejudice. Both arguments bring up valid and persuasive points to convince readers of their side.

People who believe that affirmative action is a necessity in today's society often believe that it is a way to repay people who were effected by slavery, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination. Also that institutions  like colleges will celebrate and foster diversity on their campus's. People who believe in affirmative action argue that believers in "reverse racism" base their views on test scores, while standardized tests have little relevance to how well a child does in college.

On the other hand people against affirmative action believe that it has divided working or studying environments. They also argue that affirmative action should help the disadvantaged while in Thomas Sowell's observations he finds that affirmative action only benefits people in the upper to middle class, while at the same time it tends to hurts poor whites and many Asians ability to get into college. That overall people against affirmative action believe that racism cannot be undone by more racism. That a race conscious society directly negates Martin Luther King Jr's dream of a color blind community and creates tension.

Whether or not you choose to believe that affirmative action should or should not be enacted in today's society. This argument will inevitably heat up in the future, and many people may be forced to take a side. Hopefully this article starts to get people to think about what side they believe in.

Environmental Policy

NRDC- Anti-environmental Budget Riders
Science Daily
OSTI.gov

Environmental Policy in the last decade seems it is becoming less and less important in the eyes of congress and senate members. There seems to be more and more plans to limit previous environmental legislation coming out of congress. Because of republicans completely controlling congress, more of these ideas are turning into reality. Although president Obama has taken a strong stand that environmental policy will continue to evolve, republican congress members are pushing for restrictions on environmental policy. Most commonly more space for corporations to move more freely inside of these environmental policy's. 

As stated in the article cited above by Science Daily, "clean air and health benefits hinge on key policy decisions." They estimate that with stronger EPA regulations many premature deaths can be prevented through out the United States, in Pennsylvania alone an estimated 330 premature deaths have been prevented because of these regulations. Making it obvious the importance of keeping old environmental policy's, and making new environmental policy's. In the video below it shows what companies like Starbucks are doing to prevent their environmental impact.

The Filibuster is Dying

Wall Street Journal

Oregon Live

The Conversation

Washington Post

The filibuster is on the way out of the door, especially after Democrat representative Reid initiated the "nuclear option" which changes senate rules surrounding the filibuster. This legislation changes the previous requirement to overturn a filibuster that was set at 60 votes which is considered a super majority, now with this legislation you simply need a majority to over turn any filibuster. This "nuclear option" is most only used to pass the presidents nominee's for the executive office or federal judicial system.

The filibuster is a very powerful tool for the senate to keep an equal balance between the two party's. The minority party uses the filibuster most often when they feel passionately about a certain bill that they wish to stall the vote of it so that members of the senate may rethink their opinion. In the Wall Street Journal article it discusses the critical importance the filibuster has in sustaining the balance of power between the minority party and the majority party. In the senate its the only really place for the minority party to have a say on the legislative that is going threw the congress. Especially if the minority party in the senate is also the minority party in the house. With this "nuclear option" being initiated by the Democrats it is going to limit the power of any possible minority party in the senate which may be dangerous in the future for the United States government. 

Obama's Attempt to Limit AUMF

Huffington Post
Defense One
USA Today

President Obama as the Commander and Chief  has a lot of power after the President Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force also known as AUMF. This legislation practically gave the president and any president after him the power to use military force on terrorists without consulting the Congress extensively about the military force. This is dangerous for the people of the United States of America to give the president this much power. After Obama has seen how much power this legislation has given him he is now looking for a way to limit this power for the up coming president. 

Some say that this new legislative that Obama is trying to pass isn't limiting the power but making it bigger and even more dangerous than the AUMF. The Huffington Post article that is linked above writes that this new legislative is not helping to limit the AUMF, but is helping to broaden the power that the AUMF has. Also that the new legislative is making the same crucial mistakes the the AUMF made in 2001 and that the legislative will have no real power. The Defense One article agrees that the language in the new legislative is to broad and needs to be more specific. Also this article states that the Republicans think that these new bills have to may regulations onto them. The final conclusion is that Obama is either going to have to be far more specific in his new legislative or the legislative will still refuted by both sides.

Divided Government Good or Bad?

Article 1
Article 2

Divided government is perceived as both good and bad, sometimes its bad things are more noticeable than its good characteristics. A divided government is when different political parties control the White House and the Congress. This has happened many times in United States history, and people have argued that it makes the government act better in a whole or worse.

When the government is divided it is typically known for being less productive as times before. This perspective on divided government makes it a very bad think. The government is not very efficient during these time periods and the people become frustrated for the government to pass any bills or laws. Typically a divided government is not liked from the majority of the public making it hard for a divided government to stay. This is a very obvious perspective on the possible issue of a divided government.

A very different perspective to look at a divided government is that it keeps the government loyal to the people that elected them, this is an obvious positive. The government is to consumed on trying to beat out the other political party that they do not want to do anything remotely wrong. This makes it very easy for the government to make consistently good choices for the people, and not making any bad choices. The goods of a divided government are not nearly as obvious as the bad's but are equally important.

Republican's Being Split Apart On Key Issues

02/16/15
Unit 2
Article 1
Article 2

Republican's moral compasses have been criticized by the general public turning republicans against each other. Republican's that are moderate on social issues clash with the ultra conservative republicans on major issues in the political landscape. These issues includes the 20 week ban on abortion that states that women are not aloud to get an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and immigration reforms especially on Obama's citizenship plan for illegal immigrants. These problems could undermine the power that Republican's previously thought they would have completely in congress

Republican leadership pulls anti-abortion that apparently was tearing the caucus apart. This is a clear sign that even leadership of the republican party can see the delicate balance that it takes to keep the republican together and strong. GOP sources speculated that up to 24 republicans where going to vote against the bill that would legalize the 20 week abortion ban. Another major issue that weakens the strength of the republican party is immigration as a whole. Republicans have now gone against the usual saying they think that Obama's citizenship plan for illegal immigrants may be a necessary option to boost the economy. This is dangerous for the republican party and its strength in a whole

Ohio University settles free-speech lawsuit over suggestive T-shirt

2/5/15
Unit 1
Article

This article is describing the latest lawsuit against Ohio University, that was limiting the freedom of speech that anybody can express at anytime. OU, according to the student, was telling the student was not allowed to  wear a sexually suggestive shirt. On the back of this black T-shirt "we get you off for free". OU settled the lawsuit and decided to pay the student $32,000.

This article has a direct correlation with the unit that we have been discussing in class. The student is directly saying that Ohio University is violating his 1st amendment. The student said that they were vague and encouraged students to self-censor their speech on campus. According to the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" this part of the first amendment that pertains to this article is that Congress shall make no law respecting the prohibition of the freedom of speech. A college student noticed the fact that this was violating his rights that protect him from the government. After winning the lawsuit the university promised to change and revise the sanctions that were limiting the students rights to express their own opinion. The university has already changed a part of their handbook to say “students will not be subject to disciplinary action for the lawful expression of ideas.”