Maddie Callen BHS gopo
2 views | +0 today
Follow
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (2 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Twitter Transforms Politics

The roundtable debates the role of social media in politics following Twitter's IPO.
Maddie Callen's insight:

twitter has greatly changed politics for better or for worse. consituents can communicate with representatives even easier. some politicans are thought more of as celebrities now especially during election time when they will be on the cover of magaizines and on tabloids. politicains can sometimes seem unproffesional on twitter using slang and abreviations but i think they should try to sound more proper.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 9:08 PM

Twitter has become more popular and powerful than anyone would have thought. I agree that Twitter is a faster way to spread news and updates, which can definitely help American become more politically up-to-date. I don't agree that Twitter would reduce spinning because I think people would only look at the tweets, or the news for that matter, of sources that conform to their beliefs. Conservatives would follow conservatives, and liberals would follow liberals. There is hardly a need to look at the other side's point of view anymore. There should be a way to view each sides' viewpoints.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:39 PM

Almost 100% of politicians are involved in the practice of twittering. It's another way to rant, complain and tattle tale through personal media. There's no way for policies to restrain politicians from interracting with the public through media. Politics can now reach out to the lazy, young generations and plus they can control the news they want to put out individually.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 10:06 PM

This video talks about how twitter is changin politics and the information communicated through it, using twitter makes it that much faster and easier to get information out there. Twitter has such a large ammount of users interested in politics, that it made sense for politians to create accounts. It's cool seeing politians, old and young, adapt to these new trends!

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!)

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!) | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
In the 12 months since his reelection, the president has achieved far less than he expected and suffered one mishap after another.
Maddie Callen's insight:

Obama's second term has been rough with the government shutdown, Snowden's revealing of NSA spying, and the failed implementation of ObamaCare. i dont think hes necessarily a bad president hes just had some bad luck and this has been a rough year for him.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:30 PM

Kind of a biased article. Catalogued how Obama managed to screw up his second term by promising to have more actions and less talk (as they've always done) but he ended up swallowing his words. Wasting huge national sums on....gun control (because a crazy dude killed 20 elementary kids)...really how hard is gun control that you have to spend so much on it. In his second reelection, he stated that he wanted to focus more on immigration laws. Wait, I haven't heard anything significant about such matters. Ah well, I guess he's trying to save the economy. No, not happening either, because he came up with a very smart plan, the National Healthcare (no really, its a very merciful plan but it needs MORE planning yeah?) and that basically screw up another large chunk of dough. Oh boy, I guess he still has his Congress to help him out. NOPE they're full of Republican babies. Then Obama wanted to help out with Syria, asking Putin to withdraw their rejection but Snowden is stuck in Russia, revealing unwanted, embarassing government documents. Obama is at a standstill.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 7:57 PM

This article talks about Obama's struggles as president throughout both terms, and his struggle with dealing with the republicans. At the moment, our presidents approval ratings are at their lowest because it seems as though Obama's getting nothing done in office. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:09 PM
I think that Obama was not expecting all these setbacks. He set high goals for himself and he was determined to carry them out. Things have not gone as planned for Obama and his polls have gone down. In the video the guy said "the obamacare website is one month old and still like all one month old it is still shitting its pants" so that speaks for itself and how obama is doing.
Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email

Video on msnbc.com: Critical questions are being raised about data safety in light of hacking reports and news about NSA data collection. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk explains what happens after you hit ‘send’ on an email message.
Maddie Callen's insight:

Unless your a terrorist I don't see how the government monitoring emails can really affect someone. They're just one in a million and they're not really going to read it and track them down unless its red flagged. I can see why people get upset over it just because they think its an invasion of privacy but really the government doesnt care about their buisness or familly emails.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:07 PM

This video enlightens us in depth of the workings of email and how it is possible for others to view and who could possibly be watching where it goes. Suprisingly the data doesnt stay in the states but actually travels over seas. This video just re stated all that we know and gave more detail about the whole situation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 6:43 PM

This video shows us that it true when they say anything you put on the internet will be there forever, and many of us blow that off. I feel that we all need to be a little more mindful of what we say and do online, and we should keep a lot more private.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:53 PM

Lately there has been a lot of controversy over the government reading peoples phone txts emails social media phone calls ect. I think that the people have the right to privacy as stated in the constitution. 

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say

BY 10/31 -- NSA infiltrates links to Yahoo, Google data centers worldwide, Snowden documents say | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
Agency positioned itself to collect from among millions of accounts, many belonging to Americans.
Maddie Callen's insight:

The article explains how the NSA is monitoring google and yahoo. I think they did a good job explaining and illistrating how it realates to google and to everyday people. I understand why people consider it an invasion of privacy when google and yahoo ensure users their informaiton is safe but i also feel like it doesnt affect normal people especially when their one in millions of users. the nsa is doing it to prevent terrorist attacks 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 2:49 PM

This discusses how public networks like Yahoo and Google are being tapped into by the NSA in order to provide security for Americans through access to lots of personal info. These networks have stated they do not want their databases to be tapped into by the NSA, but that is meerely just a claim. Although, both yahoo and google have started to make a move by encrypting their data in order to prevent any hacking. I think that this is going too far. What happened to privacy? Isn't that OUR right. The NSA is using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to justify their recent moves and decisions.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 5:02 PM

This article talks about the new program made by the NSA called MUSCULAR, which allows them to exploit data centers and flows from companies like Google and Yahoo. This article tells us about the negative feelings towards the federal government as overreaching its powers, the NSA says they only collect information on valid foreign targets, but who really knows.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 7:55 PM
I think that it is good for us to know what the government is doing but also it makes the USA look weak if one of our own is going and publishing private information that is vital to the security of the US. I think that on the otherhand i do not really want to know all of the spying that the government is doing i would rather not know if the gvt feels the need to infiltrate yahoo and goodle for information that they think could potentially harm the US then go ahead and do it but i think that again citizens have the rights to privacy and Snowden did a very couragous thing by standing up for the rights of the US citizens.
Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good. | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
more...
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, October 24, 2013 10:37 PM

Obama thinks that the afordable care act is more than just a website.This reform is upsetting insurance company,they are already making changes with their individual policies because they are non-complaint with the obama care. The fact that it's more than a website should scare people.

Maddy Folkerts's curator insight, October 25, 2013 9:21 PM

I don't agree with this article that the website problems means all of ObamaCare will be a failure. It's more of a technical issue than an issue with the whole plan of the policy. This article was extremely biased and touched on irrelevant problems rather than arguing the actual important, debatable topics.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:47 PM

Obama encourages people to apply for benefits over phone. The article itself is very discriminating and has a very derogetory tone. ObamaCare's real goal is to focus over health care. The disadvantage of ObamaCare is that the enrolled people will mainly be the most expensive patients. Even in the video, obama says that the website is slow and there are problems, but the intentions are good. Some people are going to be paying higher prices than they usually do.

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- It’s Not Just Political Districts. Our News Is Gerrymandered, Too.

The government shutdown reflects a political system that reinforces extremism. The news media system isn’t much different lately.
Maddie Callen's insight:

I found this article to be interesting. Different news sources take different angles on the same subject and some are biased. People with certain views tend to follow a news source that reflect them and I wonder how that can distort their views in the long run. 


When you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information
They can bend it all they want


more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:54 PM

Gerrymandering is the inherently unfair and immoral practice of politicians of reshaping political district so as to give a particular political party the upper hand. According to this article, news media is engaged in the same unfair practices. News is altered and changed to fir the interests of a certain political leaning. Media outlets choose what images and stories to share with the public so as to shape public opinion to fit its own cause. This is an age-old practice, with most people believing that media outlets are generally liberally slanted. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:03 PM

The article states how the media is bias much like a gerrymandered district. The media outlets portray different idoelogies and thus, they provide totally different point of views. Having these different media outlets gives  people different sides of different stories and to an extent, it is good to have different sides because it makes people more aware of who is spilling the facts or spreading just pure bullshit, much like Fox News delivers their broadcast every night.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:27 PM

I think that this article is very accurate. People may think they are branching out or exploring new horizons when they search the web and read the news. Search engines actually change and might guide us to only articles of certain viewpoints.  In essence, people don't receive the wide scope of information they think they are receiving because the information we intake is often filtered to fit our needs. 

Rescooped by Maddie Callen from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | 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
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. 

Rescooped by Maddie Callen from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times'

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
Maddie Callen's insight:

Obama is defending debt ceiling which places a limit on national debt that can be issued by the tresury. He belives that it does not increase the national debt by allowing more money to be spent frivolously but will encourage congress to pay the debts it already owes.

 

I do not see how raising the limit on the amount that can be spent will prevent congress from spending more money. It seems like if anyone was told the amount they could spend just increased they would just spend even more money. Rasing the debt ceiling is not a way to regulate what can be spent or tell congress to pay their debts, it's just allowing us to fall further in debt .

 

more...
Mark Sam's curator insight, September 25, 2013 1:13 AM

Obama says that we have raised the debt ceiling 'over 100 times', but most of the time, debt only increases.  Does he not understand that?  He says that raising the debt ceiling is not increasing debt, but there is a much greater chance in increasing debt from raising the ceiling.  I believe we would be much better suited to use the amount of debates we're currently using on the debt ceiling to use on how to eliminate our debt all together.  Why talk about ways to spend more when we should talk about ways to spend less?

Brian Cohen's curator insight, September 25, 2013 3:52 PM

Does anybody understand what Obama is saying about the debt cieling? Even though it's been done over 100 times does not necessarily mean that it works. It has probably been used so many times because it gives the government more freedom to go further in debt instead of taking responsibility for the high debt and finding a solution for it. And I will just come out and say it, President Obama could not have been more wrong when he said that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt. The government is going to take advantage of the extra "leeway" given to them if the ceiling is increased. 

Jalyssa Martinez's curator insight, September 26, 2013 2:10 AM

Obama, you can keep saying that raising the debt ceiling does not mean we're increasing in debt, and if we're not increasing ind ebt, why must the debt celing limit keep rising? 

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

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

Town of Greece v. Galloway -- Brief History of the Establishment Clause | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
Maddie Callen's insight:

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.

more...
Douglas Ferrell's curator insight, December 12, 2013 9:33 PM

This article talks in detail about the subject of separation of church and state. It talks about how a town called Greece in New York, in all of its town meetings would say a christian prayer before starting. There was a lawsuit over this, and was ruled that the prayers should stop because it stated that it violated the establishment clause. I believe that if people of different religions are attending the meetings then the prayers should stop, because a place of government where everyone can attend should not be bias towards one religion.

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.

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 Maddie Callen from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
Residents of rural areas feel shut out of their states' politics, so why not create their own?

Via Teresa Herrin
Maddie Callen's insight:

This article is about how certain rural areas in colorado want to suceed. The topic is interesting and I remember a few years ago when there was talk of texas suceeding and all I thought was "would Rick Perry be our President? weird" it would be hard for areas like that to support themselves as their own country but I can see why they would want to because they feel left out of politics. i wonder how they feel about the electoral college and if they feel like their votes dont count,.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:12 PM

This article talks about citizens, counties, and groups in general in certain states claiming that they want to secede from their state and make a new one. The main group that seems to have a problem is the Republicans living in a Democratic region. For example in Colorado, a vote is going tobe held for secession. I  think that if people have problems with beliefs and the way things work in a certain state, that they should leave. You cant change the whole state to meet all of your standards.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 3:29 PM

The article says that many counties's rural residents  are feeling the need secede and create a new state. Northern counties want to create their own state because they don't agree with the rest of colorado. While the creation of a new state seems a bit extreme, I feel like these residents need to be better represented to avoid ideas like secession. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:00 PM
I think this is simple if you don't like where you live move. It would be completely outrageous to secede and create another state let alone new gvt. The economy would fail and it would be a mess.
Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.
Maddie Callen's insight:

I can see how free speech is shocking. Horrible things happen to people who speak out about the government in other countries. I think it is good that we have free speech and it is included in our constitution as well as free press. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:52 PM

Although many nations around the world are democracies, the U.S is unique because it gives its people more personal freedom. The U.S. isn't conscerned with other people getting offended, as long as each person has the right to expression it is okay. The only ban that we have on this is clear and present danger. There are certain guidlines that have developed in order to rule an action potentially dangerous or not. Other countries are astounded by this practice.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:38 PM

No protections for those that shrieks obscenities and the clause to discern speeches that invokes clear and present danger are there. This just lacks bold enforcement. Governments are scared of crazy Americans' revolts and teachers fear students. Of course the rest of the world looks down on us. We lack culture, sophistication and moderation.

 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:32 PM

This article talks about how France prohibited people from talking about prophet mohammad and how although they are a democratic country free speech is not as open as it is in the US over there are stricter rules. I think one of the great things about America is the freedom to make your own choices and speak up and how you are aloud to say what you want. People who have problems with the government are aloud to voice there opinions here it would be against the 1st amendment to limit free speech. Obviously there are offensive things people should not say but we are aloud to voice our opinions when and how we want. 

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
Peter Baker talks about his book, “Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House.” He calls the relationship between the duo, “one that drifted apart.”
more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:14 PM

The video explains how Cheney was influential in Bush's decision-making, but less and less was he influential towards the end of Bush's 2nd term. This discussion was very interesting to watch as it painted Dick Cheney in another light, other than being the lackey to the younger Bush. Without Cheney's participation and adcive, Bush wouldn't have lasted the White House for past one term.

 

Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 10, 2013 11:11 PM

This video discusses the relationship between Bush in cheney and how it was not all as it seems and in their new book, Days of Fire, you can see that. All though they had their differences and grew distant they came together when needed. I think it was a nice video and good to hear a little behind the scenes of the truth of their relationship and how it wasnt all good.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:28 PM

 This video is about bush and chaney while they where in the white house. It outlines the breaking and falling apart of their relationship and how bush really didn't have any power and chaney was the one really making the decisions, like a "puppet master". I think that their relationship as friends and as colleges was strained due to the media, the policy agenda and the war in Iraq.

Scooped by Maddie Callen
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | Scoop.it
In The Wall Street Journal, president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint writes that fighting a law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.
Maddie Callen's insight:

I think during the shutdown some people weren't seeing the negative points of Obamacare they just saw Ted Cruz and abunch of republicans throwing a fit. Even the republicans who were against Obamacare thought what Ted Cruz was being rediculous. There are definently pros and cons of obamacare, it isnt perfect and not everyone will agree with every point. I think its good for americans to see both sides like this one and one thats in favor of it.

more...
Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 24, 2013 1:59 AM

Demint is obviously biased because he is the president of the leading conservative think tank in America. He claims that he has met people who complained that their converages have been renounced, their work hours cut and their jobs eliminated, but he doesn't have any direct quotes from these people, so it's all just paraphrased. The premiums have increased in 45 states. Young adult's premiums will be a lot higher than those of elderly, which will be hard on us since the baby boomers are all retiring now. The author claims that the only way Obamacare will lead to single-payer health-care system is by employers droping health-care for their low-wage workers. He also claims that health care will deteriorate in America as access to doctors will decrease. 

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:58 PM

Jim Dewint is  republican who believed that the recent government shutdown was both necessary and proper. According to him, it was the only option in fighting against an unfair law. However, he does not mention the effect of the shutdown- the government services that went to a halt, the workers who went unpaid, and those citizens adversely affected. In my opinion, DeWint, and those like him, make America the laughingstock of the global community. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:50 PM

President of the Heritage Foundation Jim Demint states that he and many others are not stopping until they have gotten rid of Obamacare. Some main points against Obamacare is that it causes employment issues and citizens can not, financially, withstand the pressure that comes with the arrival of the ACA. While this guy tries to fight against a cause that no one has succeeded in passing for almost 50 years, Obamacare is still alive. Has he done his job in stopping Obamacare.

 

No. Obamacare is still up and running. 40+ times has it been challenged and 40+ times has it succeeded in staying alive and constitutional. Maybe they should stop trying. "Three times, the charm" is the phrase, not "40+ times, the charm."

Rescooped by Maddie Callen from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Nightly News: Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

Nightly News: Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Maddie Callen BHS gopo | 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
Maddie Callen's insight:

The only thing they said to justify gerrymandering is that both parties do it. It seems unfair but so does the electoral college, and neither seem like they're going to change anytime soon. It was interesting to see how crazy the shapes can get. 

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. 

Rescooped by Maddie Callen from anonymous activist
Scoop.it!

Republican House sets up government shut down with budget that defunds Obamacare

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Friday approved an budget measure that would strip all funding from the Affordable Care Act — also known as Obamacare — or shut down the federal government.


Via Iam Legion
Maddie Callen's insight:

The republican house is threatening a government shut down in protesting obamacare. if they want to take it down this is a pretty affective way. the quote from ted cruz "This is the most important fight in the country" is very powerful and it is clear that the republicans are very passionate and will put up a fight. It will be interesting to see how it plays out since the last government shut down happened so long ago.

more...
Pierre Phillips's comment, September 24, 2013 11:23 PM
the house of rep came to a decision to shut down obama care. the majority in the house voted to shut it down. now they await for the senate to vote whether to shut it down or not which is mostly democratic. i believe the senate will not shutdown obamacare and even if it was approved the white house said they would veto the ratification either way which will lead to a government shut down. as a us citizen that is not really up to date with current events reading this shows me that the republicans believe so strongly in shutting down obamacare that they are willing to cause a government shutdown. this is an uphill battle for republicans.
Taylor Marberry's curator insight, September 24, 2013 11:55 PM

The Republicans are wanting a stripping for the funding of the Obamacare act. If this doesnt't occur, they are threatening for a shut down of the government on September 30th. I'm not sure if the Republicans are making the wisest decision, because I am not so sure that shutting the government down will aid in their cause. It's questionable if the Senate can get the votes necessary, and it will be interesting to see if some Senate Republicans cross their parties' line

Esther Chang's curator insight, September 25, 2013 1:54 AM

The Republicans want to shut down the funding of Obamacare to protect the economy. If the bill to shutdown the Obamacare was passed by senate, the White House swore to veto it but it would proceed to shut down in ten days, if it was passed by Senate. The Democarts can avoid a shutdown if they gained 60 votes to get rid of the bill. If the Obamacare is hurting our economy, then I belive that we should get rid of the Obamacare and try a different alternative. Going as far as shuting down the government is too far and I believe that there is another alternative, I'm just not smart enough to think of one. But I honestly think that a government shutdown wont happen since they would probably have to get it approved by the Senate.