Current Event Swag
0 view | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

Town of Greece v. Galloway -- Brief History of the Establishment Clause

Town of Greece v. Galloway -- Brief History of the Establishment Clause | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
James McKenzie's insight:

I have a low wall when it comes the the seperation of church and state. To an extent these need to be seperated, but I think that the way it is being handled now if sufficient. I enjoy getting to read about cases of this subject.

more...
Ross Techmanski's curator insight, December 17, 2013 10:01 PM

i think when it comes to seperation of religion and state there dose need to to be a wall.  i think in recent court cases they are seperating to much.  for example i think the commen religion that dose establish a god should be recognize.  in the santa fe case it is ok to say a prayer befor a game.  we are a majority rules country and if only 3 percent of the population proclaimes themself athiest it is ok to pray to a genral god for safty before a game.

Maddie Callen's curator insight, December 20, 2013 11:34 AM

The article does a good job explaining the history of the establishment clause. The article is about a town that conducts prayers before every town meeting. Some small towns are predominatly one religion and no one will get offended or have a problem with it but the governmnet will insist on prohibiting this. Some take the amendment literally in that there should be a seperation between church and state but they should be able to step in on a case like this.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:26 PM
In the video clips they talk about what is and is not okay based off of the informal amendments to the ways of Americans. I think religious cases are interesting and i think it is important to have separation of the church and state.
Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Still left wondering about Obamacare? Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff and PostTV’s “In Play” have the Kliff Notes version for you.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

I think the main concern is gettign people to cooperate. A small fine for not signing up won't do much to change peoples' minds. I think this article was moslty informational but seems to be biased toward Obamacare. It gave a new persepctive to me.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:29 PM

So requirements for obtaining Obamacare is basically asking us to be a bit...poor? Having national healthcare is the same as not having one because only the basics are paid. Honestly, my insurance company can do just about the same thing and I don't mind the bills if they can cover for EVERYBODY part I injured.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

This article talks about Obama Care and how everyone will have to have health insurce eventually. It also talks about how Insurance companies cannot deny anyone from buying their healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. This could be beneficial  because there's many sick people who cannot afford heath care when they really need it, and no one will get screwed over.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:44 PM
This article includes FAQs concerning ObamaCare. All the questions asked and answered include a quick explanation of ObamaCare, all the existing insurance difficulties, process of enrollment and the legality of remaining without health insurance. The health cares lunch was very big and messy for Obama so it is interesting that it has taken this long for an article like this to come out.
Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech...

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

I find it rediculous that a man is fired for praying for the saftey of children. The man did not force every child to bow their heads and marvel in the presence of a god. No he was simply acting in kind way. It seems to me like the man was practicing his freedom of religion.

more...
Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:36 PM

This article talks about a bus driver who lost his job because, even after a few warnings, he chose to pray to students on his bus. He believes that him getting fired violates the first amndment, right to religion. I can see his point on this, but I feel like if you're doing something like this is public and offending others then youre in face in a sense violating their right to religion, so it's a lose-lose situation, and he was bound to lose his job.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

I think that although i am a christian it  can be very uncomfortable when people get a religion forced  on them. Praying on a public school bus can probably be uncomfortable for some kids and although it was in good intentions it is probably not the best. It's good for people to share their religion but on their own time not during school. If it were a private christian school then that would be completely acceptable. 

Ashley O.'s curator insight, March 7, 2014 9:45 PM

That is unfair, he has every right to express his faith, just like those who are not religious and express their personal views. 

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE]

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE] | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with prayer, but the justices seemed unsure how to rule.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

This article discusses that the US Supreme Court heard an argument Wednesday on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with prayer. There is still not a clear decesion on the outcome of the case. Anthony Kennedy stated  that it is deciding if prayer is acceptable or not.  I think that this is a violation of  the 1st amendment.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:45 PM

The case won't be settled anytime soon due to that covers  controversial issues between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and speech, and the separation of church and state. It will be interesting to see where Anthony Kennedy's vote goes toward on this case.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:17 PM

I can't understand this government's "endorsement of religion". Does the free excercise clause only pertain to prohibition of enacting a single religion? Does it exclude the right to be proud of having a religion? Would it be distasteful if a teacher wear a rosary? As long as a religion is not enforced upon the unsastisfied individual, then let the government and its civil servants be humans with religions (practice as they so choose to).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:29 PM

This article talks about prayers being said in a court room. I don't see why this is such a controversy, let people be and pray if they want to. Yes I get the separation of church and state thing, but this really doesnt affect the "state".

Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Although a newcomer, he is rapidly becoming the model for GOP politicians throughout the state.
James McKenzie's insight:

I think Ted Cruz is smart for sticking to his beliefs. I like how he takes risks in order to convey his beliefs. I am thankful Texas views him as a hero. He has been criticized by almost everyone else. He has been so against Obamacare because he sees the flaws in it that eveyone sees now. I also don't agree with the saying Texas is becoming a purple state. I think Texas will be red for many years to come. 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 6:14 AM

In this article, it describes how Ted Cruz is either one or the other, really liked or disliked, in the country. But right now he is very liked by Texas returning as a hero although disliked in the Senate. I like how Cruz is receiving credit in Texas because I like how he stands up for his beliefs and takes risks. I think its fascinating how they predict Texas will become purple but I dont necessarily believe that a continuously red state for multiple years will all of a sudden go purple.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:06 PM

Ted Cruz's impact on Texans and the Republican party.Cruz has inspired GOP candidates to rally for secession, rolling back immigration laws, impeaching President Obama, and amending the Constitutional direct election of Senators. People are following him and changing their views on certain things. This article also addresses the fact that Texas is becoming a more diverse state, with a fainter red part but not entirely blue part, making it a "purple state." 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:23 PM

The article establishes Ted Cruz as a controversial senator from Texas that has quickly gained the attention of most Americans, and explains the possible political changes in Texas due to Ted Cruz. It's interesting to see that he could possibly create a major political change in Texas, where the state goes from a firmly conservative and Republican state to more of a purple state. Cruz also could possibly spark a big change in the ideology of the Republican Party.

Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

James McKenzie's insight:

This article was useless. So what if you list Republicans who caused a shutdown. They were defending what they thought to be right. Obviously they are so adamant because they can see the flaws of Obamacare. That is why they called for a reform and initiated a shutdown of government. Good job of pointing fingers.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 6:16 PM

This article details a list of Congressional members responsible for this month's government shutdown. A shocking (or perhaps not so shocking) number of these legislators hailed from Texas- these include John Culberson, John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Louis Gohmery. Not at all shockingly, nearly all of those considered responsible for the shutdown are members of the Republican party. Nominally, these "hardliners" ars fighting against an unjust law, but fail to consider those whose lives they ruin with their ideological struggle. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:01 PM

The small group of 32 Republicans shut down the government, refusing to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare. Also, the article lists the 32 Republicans and quotes them about the government shutdown. I think that the republicans should be a little more open-minded and more willing to compromise. Those from Texas are John Carter, Randy Neugebauer, John Culberson, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, and Randy Weber. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 1:17 PM

This article sheds light on the 32 conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown simply because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they biasedly stick quotes from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down.

Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

Shutdown vs. Default: The Relative Impact

Shutdown vs. Default: The Relative Impact | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Economists warn against equating the prospects of a budget impasse and a failure to raise the debt ceiling, saying the latter would be much worse for the economy.
James McKenzie's insight:

Congress has to make a decision whether to face a government shutdown or to face a public default. On September 30th the government is set to run out of money and a decesion has to be made on what to do. A shutdown would not affect “mandatory” spending — meaning money for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, tax credits and a smattering of other programs. It would however stop spending to national parks and such ammenities.

This is a tough decesion no matter who you are. Yes money is an issue. We need a way to fund our government without hurting America itself. I think that I would rather face a government shutdown that an public default.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

Same War, Different Country

Same War, Different Country | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Who will prevail in the Arab awakening, Hobbes, Khomeini or Jefferson?
James McKenzie's insight:

He makes vaild points about how all these recent wars with dictatorships are the same. Invading Syria would only lead to more turmoil within the already weak nation. Friedman makes valid points by conveying the problems with past wars as well.

more...
Mackenzie Hill's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:28 AM

It's concerning to think that the US's help in Syria could lead to a political and economic recession as tragic as Libya's after American intervention. Friedman's point about how, though we are fighting in different places, we continuously fight over the same things, and thus it is one war. It seems, however, that in every intervention, no matter the strategy, we, as a nation, make some sort of fatal mistake. 

Abe's curator insight, September 11, 2013 2:58 AM

I found this article very interesting and easy to comprehend. It really helped shed light on how Syria is just another war in the Middle East with the same issue just as the other wars that had happened in the region.

George's curator insight, September 11, 2013 3:43 AM

Friedman does a good job persuading people by refering back to past experiences that America has been through. Like the saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

This was a very influental side of the dilema. I agree that action against Syria to hurt them financially or to simply cut off the Iraqi supply plane that provides Syria with these chemical weapons. I also believe that if the president were to be overruled by Congress then he could not simply invade Syria.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:20 PM

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Congressional Democrats are increasingly expressing support for allowing Americans to retain the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

This article mainly discusses the down side of Obamacare.  The website that doesn't function properly, is a major concern. I think that this doesnt necessarily mean they need to change the law. I do like however the idea of allowing Americans to keep their current insurance. I think Obamacare is a bust at this point unless drastic changes occur.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:33 PM

Enrollment is low for the Affordable Healthcare and Demos are planning to ditch Obama. His top aides suggested cancellation but maybe Obama is saving face, he doesn't think the plan will dry up...oh but it might just will.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:53 PM

This article talks about how Obamacare is doing lots of things it said it wouldn't, like getting rid of American's insurance coverage when the president said they would keep it. Democrats and republican's are agreeing with each other on not making american's keep the obamacare.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:30 PM
This article talks about how some democrats have been threatening to abandon Obama on Health Law Provision. It says that the Democrats in congress have been more supportive of the idea that Americans should be allowed to keep the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act after Obama already stated that they could keep their existing insurance. Obama is just digging himself a deeper hole.
Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Of the 106,000 enrollees, only about 27,000 were able to sign up through the federal health-insurance site.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

These numbers are insane. It is hardto believe that so many people couldnot access the new insurance plan. The fact that they are fining those not signed up is crazy. I think they would rather pay the small fine than pay for the insurance.  I think the main concern should be fixing the website first.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:22 PM

The figures are not up to what was predicted because the people lose trust in such a brittle plan. Its new, disorganized and made with haste, those who signed up stopped midway because they were informed of its problems or because they thought about how the elites' not getting proper pay might trickle down to their jobs.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:26 PM

This article talks about the 106,000 people that enrolled inObama's health insurance in just the first month. That number was way lower than the predictions they had made. It also talks about attempts to pass laws that allow people to keep their old health polices. Its honestly not that shocking that people wouldn't jump to join the new healthcare plan.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:22 PM
I think that obviously Obama and his administration had i hopes and expectations for the health care and it was not as successful as they would have liked it to be in the beginning. I think that the website having difficulties and congress not complying is making it a lot harder and not going over as smoothly as planned.
Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Some states are citing a conflict with state laws to defy the defense secretary’s order that gay spouses of National Guard members be given the same federal marriage benefits as heterosexual spouses.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

I think that the states should have a right to decide the benefits for gay couples. I think that it is our right to choose how we run our state.  I am proud of Texas and the other 5 states for not backing down and fighting for what they believe in.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:12 PM

Some States deny the confirming of marriage benefits for homosexual couples. Personally, I find this a little funny, because the article notes that these States want to "uphold their integrity". Uhm, what sort of integrity? That homosexual marriages are not....marriages- that is, believed by the people and conservative state legislators? I can't figure out this lame excuse of "integrity", because really, refusing to accept other people's decisions are no sort of integrity. (Feeling neutral about gay marriages does not mean I fervently support it).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:09 PM

This article talks about Texas and other states refusing giving the same marriage benefits to gay couples as man/woman couples in the national guard. Defense Secretary Hagel had ordered that gay spouses of the National guard be given the same rights, but Texas and others aren't budging. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:58 PM

I think that gay people should have the same rights as other marriages. I think that especially same sex military couples should get the same benefits as everyone else. It doesn't affect anyone but them so it is obnoxious and annoying not to give it to them. Yes the states that are resisting to give the gay couples the benefits are very conservative it does not mean that we should not give everyone the same military couple benefits no matter who they are it is there right they risk there lives to serve our country and can't get couple benefits all because they are gay. That is absurd and ridiculous. 

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
A LaFollette pastor headed to court next week for having dozens of poisonous snakes at his church said the laws he allegedly violated in Tennessee infringe on his freedom of religion.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

A pastor is pleading innocent after have many poisonous snakes in his church service. I think while it may be a part of his religion, it is extreme to do such a thing. I believe that this man should not have a hearing in the supreme court.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:54 PM

Religious or not. Law or not. Who cares?! If people's lives are clearly at risk, why are such practices disputable? It's apparent that if people are not professional at handling dangerous animals, do not do so. Period. Why is the government dragged into this? and why is this stupid minister leading a blind crowd?

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 12:55 PM

This article talks about a Pastor who has to go to court because he had poisonous snakes at his church during service; however some may say that this violates one's freedon of practicing religion. In court he justifies his act with the 1st Amendment. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:18 PM

I think that if you bring a poisonous snake into your church it will probably not help bring people back. So on the pastors part that was just a weird and irrational demonstration that he could have gotten his point across in a different way. Although you do have freedom of expression and speech i do not think that is how it should be used. 

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling

BY 10/15  --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: NBC’s Kate Snow spoke with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin  about the debt ceiling and what happens if Congress fails to raise that limit so the government can borrow more money to pay its bills...

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

This video was enlightening. It was good to see how both options of the debt ceiling would affect Americans. Regardless, getting the money we need will hurt some group. It is either paying what we owe and cutting spending or suffering punsihments of our debts. I would rather cut spending and pay what we owe.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:30 PM

I am honestly befuddled by this entire predicament. Even after gathering an understanding of the debt ceiling and its impending deadline, I fail to understand why our country's elected officials, this country's highest legal authority, cannot come together and do what is best for those they represent, those who gave them their seats. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:21 PM

It seems that America has very little options, with all of them most likel going to spiral downhill. One question I would like answered is what does the government need to do to get to a point where it doesn't need to borrow money? I think that paying foreign nations back in small amounts would be best; borrowing more and raising the debt ceiling is what placed the goverment in this situation anyway. There are many other ways but I think that that would be the best way.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:43 PM

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, American citizens will experience an extreme loss of goods and services provided by the federal government. Then the government would have to decide if they want to pay back foriegn debtors (like China) and let Americans suffer, or supply goods and services to Americans and let the debt to countries increase until we do not have money yet. The states may have to step up and provide the services that the federal government can't.

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

Gerrymandering, or redistricting to gain voters was started in 1812 by Eldridge Gerry. This process has not come to a halt. In fact, this is still occuring today. It seems the politicians are actually getting voters instead of voters choosing who they like more. Some say this is the cause of the current government shutdown. In my opinion, politics is all a game of gaining voters. It sounds corrupt, but it is all about who has the power.

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

Health care fight stirs Republican backlash: analysis

Health care fight stirs Republican backlash: analysis | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
There are signs that the conservative Tea Party movement has pushed other Republicans in the U.S. Congress too far and that a counter-revolt may be brewing.
James McKenzie's insight:

As Ted Cruz continues to fight for a fillibuster, the Republican party shifts focus to attack Obama care. They are hoping to cause a government shut down. There is a concern on the amount of legistlative meetings are left until the government could possibly shut down. This is all a response to the debt ceiling crisis.

I think that the possible shut down of government may help but wil overall cause choas. Yes the bill needs to be revised, but shutting down government in general is not the solution.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by James McKenzie
Scoop.it!

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Denis McDonough, in an interview on ABC's 'This Week' said he was 'outraged' at Ted Cruz's comments that our forces would be serving as 'Al Qaeda's air force.' The interview was immediately followed by one with Sen.
James McKenzie's insight:

It is absurd to think that an attack would be limited. It is highly unlikely that an attack would not stir up conflict. "Boots on the ground" is what we will cetainly face if a "limited attack" takes place.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:25 AM

30 seconds of generalized response isn't much to go on, and McDonough's statement showed it. Rather than namby-pamby about the issue, everyone needs to grab their fears by the horns are realize: "Yes, we will possibly be helping some groups that are maybe connected to Al-Qaeda. But in the meantime, we can help a whole country of civilians, who, when pressed, will vote for the more reasonable members of the rebels, IF the US helps in time."

 

No more of this "small, calculated, concise" strike nonsense.

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:02 PM

My initial reacton to Senator Cruz's was similar to McDonough's; Cruz's statement was clearly crafted to be sensational and make headlines. Although I am not a fan of potential United States military action in Syria, Cruz's comments were purposefully disrespectful and, as McDonough iterated, "outrageous".

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:35 PM

It seems very normal and typical for hte Chief of Staff to assure the public that there will be no boots on the ground, but I believe that no amount of assurance that this will be no Libya or Afghanistan, will persuade the American public to join this war.

Rescooped by James McKenzie from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | Current Event Swag | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
James McKenzie's insight:

I do believe that some sort of action must take place to prevent further use of chemical weapons in Syria. But it seems that that president has his mind set on a physical retaliation. In my opinion, if actions are taken such as an invasion, we are putting ourselves in another world war. More sensible actions should be taken such as cutting off the supply lines to and from the US and Syria. If such actions do not help, then I would agree with a possible invasion.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, September 11, 2013 10:36 PM

Really enjoyed this video in the sense that it gave me more insight to what's going on and different points of view. Several points like the fact that innocent civilians will die on our watch because of the airstrike was one i especially liked because it made me think more deeply into why we shouldnt intervene. It's clear that this is a huge predicament that even the Round table finds difficult to choose a side in the sense that as a nation we are stuck on deciding whether to be or not to be the "world's policemen."

Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:13 PM

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful.