- Instead of using my generation because most of my friends are older I'm going to use the military. Which is mostly republican. We have Fox News on at all times in our office and I don't know anyone that I work with that voted for Obama. If they did they definately were not fessing up to it.
- I'm going to continue to be in the Air Force and who knows about the future...
- Had a good time in class! See ya in August!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The End again
sorry I didn't get the rest in before I published
The End
- I enjoyed the "Where did the Money Go?" class because I like being able to bitch about taxes and spending without looking like an ignorant butt. That and I genuinely like knowing where the money goes.
- The class that was probably my least favorite was the one on public opinion because I don't feel that its something that a class needs to take up. This is because I think people understand how public opinion plays into politics and the rest have google.
- I had a fairly good amount of knowledge about government but I definately learned quite a bit in this class.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Museum Part 2
I learned about the history of McLean County over the last couple of centuries and the impact its leaders and community had on the United States as a whole. Also, how agriculture and industry had impacted those leaders and members of the community. It is important to know the history of where you live, however it tends to get missed when you haven't grown up in the area. Newcomers to an area are to busy with moving, jobs, kids, school, etc. to take the time to notice.
The reason I've never visited the Museum is because of the reasons mentioned before (minus the kids part). When I do get two seconds to breath its usually spent doing other things that I've neglected. There is definitely a connection between politics and McLean County (hence the Political Gallery) but going through the different galleries you see the impact on politics from the Vietnam War to Lincoln's famous "Lost Speech" that catapulted the Republican Party into view. Also the displays for women suffrage, all of the past wars, and even agriculture and industry play into politics. We already talked about the Vietnam War display and obviously that is what interested me. It was a very nice display but I think the POW/MIA section could have been bigger and better attributed to these soldiers. I don't think hardly anyone of my generation or the one before mine, for that matter, even come close to understanding the horrific pains and torture that these soldiers went through. That is something that holds true and dear to my heart and I didn't like to see it put off in a corner like it was in this display.
The reason I've never visited the Museum is because of the reasons mentioned before (minus the kids part). When I do get two seconds to breath its usually spent doing other things that I've neglected. There is definitely a connection between politics and McLean County (hence the Political Gallery) but going through the different galleries you see the impact on politics from the Vietnam War to Lincoln's famous "Lost Speech" that catapulted the Republican Party into view. Also the displays for women suffrage, all of the past wars, and even agriculture and industry play into politics. We already talked about the Vietnam War display and obviously that is what interested me. It was a very nice display but I think the POW/MIA section could have been bigger and better attributed to these soldiers. I don't think hardly anyone of my generation or the one before mine, for that matter, even come close to understanding the horrific pains and torture that these soldiers went through. That is something that holds true and dear to my heart and I didn't like to see it put off in a corner like it was in this display.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Museum before
I've never been to the Museum or courthouse. This would be because I just moved here six months ago and haven't had a second to breath since I moved here. It would be interesting to see the museum and to know more about the history of this area since I plan on being here for quite a few years. It does matter since it is important to know the history of where you live.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
I seem to be in the moderate to liberal side of things. There is no one on the chart that was anywhere close to me so I have no idea who I would be linked to. I'm not really surprised by where I fit. I consider myself a liberal republican (I know that's an oxy-moron but that's where I place myself). I believe some social issues are morally wrong but I don't believe the government has the right to step in and have any control over these issues. Economically I believe for the most part that the government should also stay out of things also. I despise the welfare and social security systems because I believe they are too easy to take advantage of and too many people abuse the system.
Like I said I have voted republican both in the 2004 and 2008 elections and have not been able to vote in any other elections but I'm not such a strong republican that I wouldn't look at a democrat. What I noticed about the GOP website is it was being rebuilt so hopefully it will come back much more user friendly and helpful. One thing I truly believe hurt John McCain in the last election was the republicans inability to use the web or atleast to use anywhere close to what Obama did. Also what I noticed was the giant tin-man on the homepage saying that we were under scrutiny. This is just alluding to the democrats need for a large and costly government which most republicans do not like. This would be a case of the now Government Motors formerly known as General Motors.
Sorry this is getting in late, I had to work.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court Nominee
The 'Empathy' Nominee, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html. 27 May 2009.
The word that gets the closest to this authors tone in this reading is skepticism. The author's view on Judge Sotomayor is that her idealogy has nothing do with the law but rather her background. The article brings up that when Judge Sotomayor said, "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She set the agenda that she will base her decisions on cases based on her life rather than her interpretation of the law and how this will effect her decisions on the Supreme Court. The article uses two cases that she had heard in her lower court that have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court such as, Riverkeeper v. EPA and Merrill Lynch v. Dabit. The article also brings to light her ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano. The author is also scared that she will rule in favor of minority groups instead of ruling in a fair and just way. I think this author feels that she was not nominated because of her merit and accomplishments but because she fit the President's " ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html).
The word that gets the closest to this authors tone in this reading is skepticism. The author's view on Judge Sotomayor is that her idealogy has nothing do with the law but rather her background. The article brings up that when Judge Sotomayor said, "I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." She set the agenda that she will base her decisions on cases based on her life rather than her interpretation of the law and how this will effect her decisions on the Supreme Court. The article uses two cases that she had heard in her lower court that have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court such as, Riverkeeper v. EPA and Merrill Lynch v. Dabit. The article also brings to light her ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano. The author is also scared that she will rule in favor of minority groups instead of ruling in a fair and just way. I think this author feels that she was not nominated because of her merit and accomplishments but because she fit the President's " ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html).
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Congress Matters
Well, I'm going to write about May 20th's Today in Congress because I have no idea how to find May 26th's, so hopefully this works. I even tried to switch the 20 in the web address to 26 but that gave me the same information. Cross my fingers lol.
I will say I'm glad we went over the things we did in class because it gave me a much better understanding of what I was reading. For instance, the HR in front of the bill numbers, etc. Like, it was said in class I believe Congress is a very hard idea to wrap your head around so the clarification made this blog/article, whatever it is a lot simpler to navigate.
One thing I noticed about this was how informal the writing style was and how biased it seemed to be. I know, I know media/politics is always at some sort of bias, but I was wondering who writes for this website. He's definately not a conservative from what I read. Not a fan of any Republicans (I clicked on his name). Is it a random reporter or it someone that Congress has appointed to write these articles, knowing this would help me put this into a little bit better context.
Okay, so the first thing I noticed when reading this blog was what the House was meeting on. What popped out at me was the National Missing Children Day and Teacher Appreciation blah blah. Don't get me wrong I'm not an ass (sorry I know you said not to cuss but I can't help it), and these things are important, but do we really need to be spending time in Congress on this kind of thing. I know you mentioned in class about these sorts of debates but why couldn't we send around a professional survey (or something equivelant) and congressmen and women could vote on it during their own time. There are so many important issues out there and why are we spending tax dollars (there I go with the whole tax card) to decide these issues. I would like to know how much time and money is spent on these mundane issues. Now that I've made myself look like a biatch I'll move on.
Moving on, I did notice that the House spent the majority of their time on bills such as the Credit Cardholder's Act which I'm divided on and need to do better research on. They also met on the Small Business Act and the PACT Act. I clicked on the PACT Act because I wasn't sure what it was about so I was interested in that it was about the tobacco taxes. It was good to see that these sort of bills are what is spent the most time on.
As far as the Senate goes, why did they only convene for one bill when the House spent their time on five different bills. I understand that the Senate has will filibuster a bill but are there other reasons for this. I also noted that the list of committees was much longer for the House than what it was for the Senate. Is this basically because of size or are there other reasons for this. Piggy-backing on this I will say the Senate sets up a better schedule than the house and seems to be a little bit more organized than what the House. But with a quarter of the people to corral I guess it might be easier to be more organized.
I'm gonna Google this David Waldman guy because I want to know what I am reading. I have a hard time reading stuff like this because I don't really care about what other people wonder or their opinions. I have my own so when I'm reading something like this I want "just the facts." So I'll have to do some personal homework after I send this in.
I will say I'm glad we went over the things we did in class because it gave me a much better understanding of what I was reading. For instance, the HR in front of the bill numbers, etc. Like, it was said in class I believe Congress is a very hard idea to wrap your head around so the clarification made this blog/article, whatever it is a lot simpler to navigate.
One thing I noticed about this was how informal the writing style was and how biased it seemed to be. I know, I know media/politics is always at some sort of bias, but I was wondering who writes for this website. He's definately not a conservative from what I read. Not a fan of any Republicans (I clicked on his name). Is it a random reporter or it someone that Congress has appointed to write these articles, knowing this would help me put this into a little bit better context.
Okay, so the first thing I noticed when reading this blog was what the House was meeting on. What popped out at me was the National Missing Children Day and Teacher Appreciation blah blah. Don't get me wrong I'm not an ass (sorry I know you said not to cuss but I can't help it), and these things are important, but do we really need to be spending time in Congress on this kind of thing. I know you mentioned in class about these sorts of debates but why couldn't we send around a professional survey (or something equivelant) and congressmen and women could vote on it during their own time. There are so many important issues out there and why are we spending tax dollars (there I go with the whole tax card) to decide these issues. I would like to know how much time and money is spent on these mundane issues. Now that I've made myself look like a biatch I'll move on.
Moving on, I did notice that the House spent the majority of their time on bills such as the Credit Cardholder's Act which I'm divided on and need to do better research on. They also met on the Small Business Act and the PACT Act. I clicked on the PACT Act because I wasn't sure what it was about so I was interested in that it was about the tobacco taxes. It was good to see that these sort of bills are what is spent the most time on.
As far as the Senate goes, why did they only convene for one bill when the House spent their time on five different bills. I understand that the Senate has will filibuster a bill but are there other reasons for this. I also noted that the list of committees was much longer for the House than what it was for the Senate. Is this basically because of size or are there other reasons for this. Piggy-backing on this I will say the Senate sets up a better schedule than the house and seems to be a little bit more organized than what the House. But with a quarter of the people to corral I guess it might be easier to be more organized.
I'm gonna Google this David Waldman guy because I want to know what I am reading. I have a hard time reading stuff like this because I don't really care about what other people wonder or their opinions. I have my own so when I'm reading something like this I want "just the facts." So I'll have to do some personal homework after I send this in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
