AP Government
26 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Rachel Smith
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 | AP Government | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.
Rachel Smith's insight:

The article basically questions the extent of First Amendment rights when they could bring about violence and security threats.  The article cites an inflammatory anti-Muslim video and its violent fallout from some Muslim groups, including an attack on a US embassy. However, the article was not clear on who made the video and what sort of material it contained, so it comes across as extremely judgemental towards those whose religion was insulted.

I tend to respect a person's right to say something even if I want to punch that person in the face for saying it, but I think there are certain cases where a line needs to be drawn. For example, emotional abuse (whether parental or between partners) often goes unrecognized because people are allowed to say what they want, and those on the receiving end are expected to simply deal with it. A parenting book in which the author advocated beating and starving children has been linked to the deaths of at least three children to date- but the book is still on the market. I think speech encouraging abuse or assault towards others can be regulated.

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. 

Rescooped by Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

Ah, the putrid smell of government propaganda. If ObamaCare "leaves most of the healthcare system alone," why are thousands upon thousands losing their coverage due to stricter demands on insurance companies? 
Surely after so much pro-ObamaCare propaganda and adverstising, those who are going to be convinced that the program is worth their money are already convinced. I don't think more articles like this are going to convince the rest of America to partake in government healthcare. 

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.
Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | AP Government | 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.”
Rachel Smith's insight:

Baker talks about the strong relationship between Bush and Cheney at the beginning of Bush's presidency and how it changed from the first to the second term.  I guess I was surprised to learn that Cheney was more adamant about post-9/11 security measures than Bush was because I had always heard of those in conjunction with Bush.  Then again, when those events were happening, I was too young to either really know or really care, so it's plausible that I just had no idea what was actually going on.  

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.

Rescooped by Rachel Smith from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common | AP Government | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Rachel Smith's insight:

Wow, this guy really doesn't like Obama.  Or the government, really.  His apparent faith in the Madisonian model seems a bit idealistic to me, but I like that he doesn't like uncompromising politicians.  However, expecting politicians to be willing to compromise seems unrealistic.  

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:10 PM

Both are similar in that they are really hard to compromise with. The framers of the government have aimed for the structure of the govt. to balnce out the power. I don't see any similarities between the two other than their characteristics when it comes to compromise.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:26 PM

I strongly agree  that politicians these days are so blinded by their parties' goals that they are unable to make necessary compromises that are better for the country. I like the way that the writer compares the Tea Party with Obama. He also says that because of this unwillingness to compromise, Obama has too much power.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:02 PM

The article says that both Obama and the Tea Party don't want to go through the process of compromising that Madison had planned out. They're both impatient and arent willing to work together. I think an issue like this should be compromised, They need to come up with a solution together and figure out what to do. Obama does want the legislative branch to touch Obamacare. In my opinion, thats not very democratic or fair. The legislative branch represents the US citizens. we elect representatives in the legislative branch so we can have a voice. With Obama saying he doesn''t want congess to touch it seems like he doesn't really care about our opinion.

Scooped by Rachel Smith
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 | AP Government | 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.
Rachel Smith's insight:

Well, that was also very biased, but at least the author pretty much admitted up front that it was going to be.  The article dealt with the financial implications of ObamaCare on both a national and individual level, and the implications are not good.  The author did an excellent job of backing up his assertions with evidence  most of the time.  I agree with his assertion that ObamaCare is not economically practical for the US.

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 Rachel Smith from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

Having read the article on gerrymandering, I can see how it causes problems in the government.  However, this video didn't really make that point very clearly.  The link between weirdly-shaped districts and the government shutdown just seemed too tenuous to me. 

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 Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

As US approaches deadline for debt ceiling deadline, markets remain on edge

As US approaches deadline for debt ceiling deadline, markets remain on edge | AP Government | Scoop.it
Rachel Smith's insight:

As the US comes closer to reaching a decision on the debt ceiling, foreign nations take notice.  Because of our integration into the global economy, any fiscal policy we choose to pursue can have far-reaching effects.

 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

Same War, Different Country

Same War, Different Country | AP Government | Scoop.it
Who will prevail in the Arab awakening, Hobbes, Khomeini or Jefferson?
Rachel Smith's insight:

Friedman's entire article is based on the assumption that the US is interfering in Syria in order to affect the outcome of a revolution.  That is absolutely false.  By destroying chemical weapons that could be used by Assad or taken over and used by the rebels (as has happened in the past), we are equally disadvantaging both sides while protecting our own national interests.  Friedman's entire article is based on false premises and seems intended only to scare people away from supporting a military strike.

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 Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

1. Don't make Russia and China mad.  Given the current world economy,  Russia, China, and the US have "mutually assured economic destruction" power over each other, so while nuclear war is unlikely, we could definitely see some negative consequences heading our way.

2. The WHOLE POINT of a strike in Syria is to destroy the chemical weapons, thereby preventing both Assad and terrorists from being able to use them.  We're not arming the rebels at all.

3. War Powers Act.  The President has the authority to order a strike.

 

I agree with Sen. Cruz that now is "not a time for politics," but this statement after a barrage of uninformed statements makes him seem incredibly hypocritical.  

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 Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

I agree with the point brought up that in calling Congress to decide on Syria, President Obama has virtually locked himself into pursuing whatever action or lack thereof that Congress decides on.  He has also made his task more difficult for him because now he's in a position of trying to convince Congress representatives to support his point of view.

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. 

Rescooped by Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

So what's better: healthcare that doesn't meet certain government-imposed standards or no healthcare at all? 

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Not only is the federal government stepping in to tell insurance companies exactly what they have to sell, but it seems like a scheme to draw customers from these companies to government-provided insurance.  If Obama wants more money to keep the government running, maybe he could look at some less extravagant spending policies instead of taking business from private companies.

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 Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

Well, ObamaCare's clearly off to a good start.  Not that I really expected anything better as soon as I heard that the website was not functional.  There aren't enough people signing up for the program, and with the noncompliance fees being lower than the yearly cost of insurance, it doesn't look like people are going to be signing up for the program any time soon.  Unless a drastic change in enrollment happens, ObamaCare is basically doomed because no one paying for it --> not enough money to actually insure people.

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.
Scooped by Rachel Smith
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. | AP Government | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
Rachel Smith's insight:

Ugh, more bias.  I actually did tend to agree that the financing of the Affordable Care Act is unsustainable because the unhealthy constituents are going to be the ones using healthcare, while the healthy will have much less of a tendency to buy healthcare and fund the program.  When the fee for not complying is lower than the cost of complying, noncompliance seems like the most rational option for people who don't need the coverage.  

However, I think the article undermined its credibility towards the end when it went out on a limb to "expose the liberal agenda," which just seemed ridiculous.  

I  understand that the informational website should be easy to use and understand, and while it may not be so at the moment, there's still time to get it up and running.  The website's deficiencies are a problem, but there's still time to fix them.

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 Rachel Smith
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.
Rachel Smith's insight:

Well that seems fairly intuitive: people look for information that agrees with them.  The only thing brought up in this article that even vaguely surprised me is that Google caters to your political preferences, but even that was not shocking.  However, I disagree with our news being "gerrymandered"- no one says you have to only watch news that agrees with you.  It's a choice.  

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. 

Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

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

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

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

Rachel Smith's insight:

I don't know what I expected from the title, but this is just ridiculously biased.  Yes, it's entirely the Republicans' fault- liberal spending doesn't push us further into debt.  The representatives' comments were clearly chosen to be inflammatory, ranging from 9/11 references to short and insensitive sentences.  I would like to see these quotes in context before forming an opinion.

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.

Rescooped by Rachel Smith 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 | AP Government | 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
Rachel Smith's insight:

It seems like realistically, we have no way of fixing this problem.  The only way the situation could be resolved is if it had never happened in the first place, if America had never gotten so far into debt.  More conservative spending would be an obvious first step, but that can only take us so far.  The problem seems out of our hands now.

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.

Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

Is it too late to avert a government shutdown?

Is it too late to avert a government shutdown? | AP Government | Scoop.it
The clock is ticking on Ted Cruz's time bomb
Rachel Smith's insight:

Sen. Cruz's efforts to offset a vote, while admirable, may not prove to be very effective.  Is a total government shutdown really any better than ObamaCare? 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

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

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | AP Government | 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.
Rachel Smith's insight:

I agree with McDonough that Ted Cruz's comments were absolutely ridiculous.  A strike on Syria could be carried out and complete in less than a day with absolutely no troop deployment because of predator drone capabilities.  We're not risking American lives, and by destroying Syria's chemical weapons- "Syria's" because we don't know what side will use them next- we are most likely hugely decreasing a terrorist threat to the US.

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.

Scooped by Rachel Smith
Scoop.it!

USA TODAY Poll: Opposition to Syrian airstrikes surges

USA TODAY Poll: Opposition to Syrian airstrikes surges | AP Government | Scoop.it
Rachel Smith's insight:

I think that by delaying a military strike in Syria, President Obama has made his job of convincing the public to support him extremely difficult.  The average American, when asked about this issue, doesn't know enough about Syria let alone modern global politics to make an informed decision.  Obama's job is going to be a difficult one.

more...
Abe's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:49 AM

Seems like avery presidential address arouses my inner patriotism just a tad bit. 

George's curator insight, September 11, 2013 3:17 AM

It's quite interesting seeing how Obama's address is compared to other presidential addresses all dealing with a request to go to war. Obama is faced with the challenge of persuading a country that's tired of fighting wars to rise up once again to act as the world's policemen. 

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:13 PM

This poll does not surprise me in the least; in fact, I am among the majority who oppose United States military action in Syria. The United States has its own internal issues to attend to, and spending money and resources on unnecessary actions can only further our troubles.