For the past week, I have been going to bed after midnight, getting up at 6:20 a.m., working until 10:30, attending class from 11 until 1:30, and then, working again for a few more hours before various evening obligations (i.e., cookout and helping out with youth group). The reason I mention this is to provide a brief glimpse into how tired I have been feeling this week between all of the set-up for Special Olympics and the other activities with which I have been involved. Nevertheless, I did not realize how exhausted I actually was while I was in class. Sometimes I have a difficult time focusing in a class that lasts only an hour and fifteen minutes, yet I did not have that problem during these past four weeks. Class was always interesting, and I am glad that I was able to be a part of it. Not only was the content fascinating, but I found myself being challenged and encouraged to expand my knowledge and overall experiences. While previous experienced influenced me to pursue a minor in Political Science, this class definitely reassured me of my decision.
Personally, I appreciated all of the various topics that we discussed in class, and I hesitate to suggest that one or two of them were better than the others. Instead, I would like to focus on two of the "sexy" items we covered. First, elections are exciting times filled with energy and passion. I think that this past presidential election was one of the major contributions to my desire to become more involved in the political process. Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, I did not pay nearly as much attention to the local elections in Bloomington. On the other hand, this course has stressed the importance of getting involved on all levels. Still, I know that I have to do more than simply vote and leave it at that. Political participation is a daily process because politics are linked to virtually every aspect of life. Elections represent a clear example of how people can express their views on important issues. However, my second sexy topic shows that some of the most crucial issues are not always addressed by politicians. Talking about Social Security and Medicare helped me to realize that many people are not aware of the real problems that are facing the nation. Of course, the war and other recent events are pressing issues as well, but those are not as easy to overlook. In a country full of debt, I am not surprised that we do not really concern ourselves with deficits and debt nearly as much as we should. After seeing how our class, consisting of well-educated young adults, knew relatively nothing about this problem, I wonder how many other issues are we are overlooking in our daily lives.
Besides not being able to select one favorite aspect, I also have trouble picking my least favorite section. I can understand how some of my fellow classmates did not enjoy talking about public opinion. Many of the people in class already hold strong opinions about issues, and they understand how the public can influence politicians. Nonetheless, studying this topic is important to understanding the overall political climate in the United States.
In an earlier blog, I stated that I did not have a deep comprehension of the intricacies of the American political system. While I do not specifically remember all of the exact details, such as how much the government spends on certain programs, I have acquired knowledge about the process in general. As Where Does the Money Go? demonstrates, figures change on a regular basis, yet the underlying principles of the government remain fairly intact over lengthy time spans. I feel much more comfortable talking about politics, and I have gained a stronger urge to seek out additional information that will help me make better decisions.
After hearing people's feelings about Bartlett's generalizations of our generation, I hesitate to make similar assessments. Based on my experiences and what I hear from other people, I actually agreed with a lot of the statements that Bartlett made. I realize that his observations do not (and cannot) describe every member of our generation. Yet, I can see that many young people are not politically engaged. Even though turnouts have increased for the past two elections, participation goes beyond simply voting. Most people can show up and fill out a ballot, but being informed and active the other days of the year is something else. I think that we are making progress in this area, but I do not want to get ahead of myself because we still have a great deal of work left to do. With that said, I am optimistic that we can make a difference.
If I have not emphasized my suggestions enough, I simply want to reiterate that we need to get involved every day. We need to invest time in learning and growing on our own rather than simply trying to earn a grade. Then, we need to spread that knowledge with other people and invite people to get engaged as well. Of course, this process includes voting, but it entails much more than that. We need to get over the uneasiness we feel when discussing politics and ask the questions that no one else is asking.
I want to thank you for a wonderful experience, and I hope that you have a fantastic rest of the summer. I look forward to POL 221 in the fall.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Museum Reflection
Taking a break from class to visit the museum felt like a nice change in our routine. Sadly, I had never been there in the 10 years that I have lived in McLean County. I cannot point to one specific reason for not going there before now. I had only a vague impression of what was even in the museum in the first place; I rarely ever travel to downtown Bloomington because I usually have no reason to be there; and I do not really pay close attention to the history of the area (Who knew that McLean County was so interesting?). However, this class has encouraged me to learn more about my surroundings rather than just go about my day without worrying about things that do not seem to directly affect me. I think that understanding the history can not only be interesting, but also useful in realizing why certain things are the way that they are today.
Often, I question history as a discipline because so much is left untold, and the facts are generally skewed towards a particular position/ideal. Just as statistics can be used to show virtually anything, history can sometimes be manipulated to portray a certain perspective. Museums are not always an exception, but they do seem to tie together a vast amount of information in a more appealing manner (as compared to textbooks, for example).
Despite my negative reaction to the field, I do appreciate the events that occurred in the past, and I am fascinated to learn about all of life's mysteries. History ties into virtually every other discipline because we often need to comprehend the past before we can move forward. Clearly, this idea holds true in politics as well. Besides the fact that the museum had a specific room dedicated to politics, the concerns of the people are represented in every aspect of people's lives. Knowing about how the Yankees and the Germans/Irish fought over the issue of alcohol provides useful background information about some of the political debate that would have occurred back then. Life is political, and history captures "politics" both directly and indirectly.
I truly enjoyed walking through the museum. I was able to learn a lot of information, especially what was included on the worksheets. Unfortunately, I was not completely focused on taking in the experience in the same way as if I had gone there on my own time. Having a worksheet to do guided my time, but I felt drawn away from some of the finer details. As a result, I did walk around a few of the rooms after completing the worksheet to try to appreciate the experience all the more. I was able to see some intriguing sights and read some unusual facts. One image showed street cars, and I never would have guessed that Bloomington once had those. I was also unaware about much of the time that Abraham Lincoln spent in the area. This trip further sparked my curiosity and makes me wonder about the history of other seemingly ordinary locations. I will definitely attempt to pay more attention to the world around me, and I hope to share that passion with others (including bringing friends to the museum).
Often, I question history as a discipline because so much is left untold, and the facts are generally skewed towards a particular position/ideal. Just as statistics can be used to show virtually anything, history can sometimes be manipulated to portray a certain perspective. Museums are not always an exception, but they do seem to tie together a vast amount of information in a more appealing manner (as compared to textbooks, for example).
Despite my negative reaction to the field, I do appreciate the events that occurred in the past, and I am fascinated to learn about all of life's mysteries. History ties into virtually every other discipline because we often need to comprehend the past before we can move forward. Clearly, this idea holds true in politics as well. Besides the fact that the museum had a specific room dedicated to politics, the concerns of the people are represented in every aspect of people's lives. Knowing about how the Yankees and the Germans/Irish fought over the issue of alcohol provides useful background information about some of the political debate that would have occurred back then. Life is political, and history captures "politics" both directly and indirectly.
I truly enjoyed walking through the museum. I was able to learn a lot of information, especially what was included on the worksheets. Unfortunately, I was not completely focused on taking in the experience in the same way as if I had gone there on my own time. Having a worksheet to do guided my time, but I felt drawn away from some of the finer details. As a result, I did walk around a few of the rooms after completing the worksheet to try to appreciate the experience all the more. I was able to see some intriguing sights and read some unusual facts. One image showed street cars, and I never would have guessed that Bloomington once had those. I was also unaware about much of the time that Abraham Lincoln spent in the area. This trip further sparked my curiosity and makes me wonder about the history of other seemingly ordinary locations. I will definitely attempt to pay more attention to the world around me, and I hope to share that passion with others (including bringing friends to the museum).
Sunday, June 7, 2009
McLean County
Unfortunately, I do not know much about McLean County, despite living here for almost 10 years. I cannot say that I have any justifiable reason for my ignorance either. I can only say that I have been pretty sheltered. I went to school, focused on my work and extracurricular activities, and basically got by without having to know much else.. or even travel to many parts of the area. I was not big on reading the newspaper, and for most of my time here, I was too young to vote, so I did not pay close attention to local politics. Reluctantly, I have to admit that I did not vote in this past local election. I feel pretty lousy about that, especially since the election was so close. However, I honestly did not know much about the candidates because I had only heard about Normal's election from people on campus. In retrospect, I probably could have briefly researched the candidates and made a semi-informed decision, but in my head, I thought that I was too busy. After class, I had meetings to attend and homework to finish, so I did not want to call and get a ride for 15-20 minutes (each way) to vote for people that I knew nothing about. Now, I realize that I made a significant mistake because local elections affect me and the people I know on a regular basis. Generally, I have not given much thought to how I have been affected, but I am learning about the importance of staying informed. I am not entirely certain about whether or not I will continue to live in the Bloomington-Normal area after I graduate in two years. Nevertheless, I know that wherever I am, I need to seek out information and become engaged in the political process.
As for McLean County, I do not know much more than the fact that it has been traditionally conservative. Many of the state and federal representatives in the area have generally been Republicans. Timothy Johnson (R) has been the representative of the 15th district since 2001, and until Debbie Halvorson (D) won the 11th district in 2009, Jerry Weller (R) had been in office since 1995. Surprisingly, the 11th district was won by Democrats from 1959 until 1995. Without looking up those specifics, I would not have guessed that (even though my family did not move here until 1999). For the most part, I still remain fairly uninformed about the place I call home. I certainly hope to change that in the future.
As for McLean County, I do not know much more than the fact that it has been traditionally conservative. Many of the state and federal representatives in the area have generally been Republicans. Timothy Johnson (R) has been the representative of the 15th district since 2001, and until Debbie Halvorson (D) won the 11th district in 2009, Jerry Weller (R) had been in office since 1995. Surprisingly, the 11th district was won by Democrats from 1959 until 1995. Without looking up those specifics, I would not have guessed that (even though my family did not move here until 1999). For the most part, I still remain fairly uninformed about the place I call home. I certainly hope to change that in the future.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Party / Ideology
I was not entirely surprised by the results of this test because recently, I have begun developing more libertarian views about issues. A few weekends ago, I read The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul, and I found many of his ideas to be very fascinating. Interestingly enough, before discovering his thoughts (which occurred shortly after the election), I found myself to be much more Democratic because I have always thought that we need to help people that are struggling. I actually voted for Obama because I was eager to see how he would help out the less fortunate. The Audacity of Hope is actually the next book on my reading list, so it will be interesting to compare the two positions. Since the election, I also took a philosophy class (238 - Rights and Wrongs). Along with my external research and a more questioning outlook on life (I say that with hesitation because I feel that I am generally a curious person), I began to contemplate the role of government in our lives. Ideally, a democracy involves everyone having a say in what the government does. However, because of our winner-take-all system, much of the population goes unrepresented. For instance, Obama's approval rating is around 60%. That means that approximately 40% of the population either disapproves or has no opinion. Hypothetically, that would mean that a group of five friends could disagree about where they would like to eat dinner; three people could favor one restaurant, while the other two oppose that choice. With more government intervention, those two friends would be forced to go along with the group, even if they disliked the selection. With less government, the three friends could still go to their restaurant while allowing the other two to choice what they wanted for themselves; they would still be united as friends and meet up later even though they split up. Translated into American government, the Democrats favor more intervention and the use of force to accomplish goals (i.e., taxes). I do feel that a lot of those issues do need to be addressed, and I certainly support helping others. Still, I believe that we can achieve those same goals in other ways. Rather than rely on the government to take care of it for us, we should take responsibility for our own actions and use our personal abilities to make a difference. I think that nonprofit organizations are a wonderful entity, and I believe (somewhat like Peter Singer's views in Famine, Affluence, and Morality) that people have a moral responsibility to at least reconsider their priorities and assist others.
As for this test itself, I found it to be somewhat interesting. Unfortunately, I found some of the questions to be very broad, and thus, I had a difficult time selecting an answer. Plus, I wanted to explain some of my answers because I believe that many people could pick the same answer for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I thought that the test was pretty good. I fell into the Libertarian Right, like Milton Friedman. Traditionally, this seems to be more conservativist leaning, but truly I would probably fall more in line with "Republicans" like Ron Paul. Therefore, if I were to select a party, I would side with the Republicans. However, I disagree with quite a few of the policies they tend to stand for these days. For instance, I like the idea of a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than fighting multiple wars and stationing troops in so many countries. Recently, I obtained a book by Nelson Mandela and another by Gandhi because I would like to know more about them, especially with regards to civil disobedience and nonviolent alternatives. Additionally, I am like the justice on the West Wing in the sense that I would allow civil unions / gay marriages because the government should not decide that for its people. I oppose the death penalty as well. Nonetheless, as we briefly discussed in class, the two parties in the US are not that drastically different, and many times, they want the same results, but they simply disagree about the means to achieve them. I think that we need to hold each and every individual responsible for making a difference in society.
I noticed that both the GOP and the Democrats' websites are very professional-looking, and they are fairly easy to navigate through. They certainly appeal to a wide audience and provide an ample amount of information. Nevertheless, I did not appreciate the "The Democrats are advancing their agenda. Your life is now under their scrutiny" introduction on the GOP site. I think that a lot of the decisions being made within the Republican party these days are not very wise in terms of political strategy. Sadly, they are tearing the party apart from the inside, and the Democrats are more than happy to let them.
Personally, I vary on many issues, and I do not like to simply accept things that I am told. I prefer to question what I am learning and critically evaluate it. I have just begun to understand some of the intricacies involved in politics, and I am eager to continue growing and becoming a more active citizen.
As for this test itself, I found it to be somewhat interesting. Unfortunately, I found some of the questions to be very broad, and thus, I had a difficult time selecting an answer. Plus, I wanted to explain some of my answers because I believe that many people could pick the same answer for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I thought that the test was pretty good. I fell into the Libertarian Right, like Milton Friedman. Traditionally, this seems to be more conservativist leaning, but truly I would probably fall more in line with "Republicans" like Ron Paul. Therefore, if I were to select a party, I would side with the Republicans. However, I disagree with quite a few of the policies they tend to stand for these days. For instance, I like the idea of a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than fighting multiple wars and stationing troops in so many countries. Recently, I obtained a book by Nelson Mandela and another by Gandhi because I would like to know more about them, especially with regards to civil disobedience and nonviolent alternatives. Additionally, I am like the justice on the West Wing in the sense that I would allow civil unions / gay marriages because the government should not decide that for its people. I oppose the death penalty as well. Nonetheless, as we briefly discussed in class, the two parties in the US are not that drastically different, and many times, they want the same results, but they simply disagree about the means to achieve them. I think that we need to hold each and every individual responsible for making a difference in society.
I noticed that both the GOP and the Democrats' websites are very professional-looking, and they are fairly easy to navigate through. They certainly appeal to a wide audience and provide an ample amount of information. Nevertheless, I did not appreciate the "The Democrats are advancing their agenda. Your life is now under their scrutiny" introduction on the GOP site. I think that a lot of the decisions being made within the Republican party these days are not very wise in terms of political strategy. Sadly, they are tearing the party apart from the inside, and the Democrats are more than happy to let them.
Personally, I vary on many issues, and I do not like to simply accept things that I am told. I prefer to question what I am learning and critically evaluate it. I have just begun to understand some of the intricacies involved in politics, and I am eager to continue growing and becoming a more active citizen.
An Interest Group in America
I decided to follow Alli's lead and investigate an interest group that we did not discuss in class today. I know that we talked about how people feel less than comfortable bringing up the topic of abortion, but I discovered a group that seemed interesting to me. Typically, people associate feminists with the pro-choice movement, but I found a "nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots" organization that considers itself to be both "pro-woman and pro-life." The name of the group is Feminists for Life of America, and their website is located at http://www.feministsforlife.org/index.htm.
Their website provides many links to various information relating to both abortion and other feminist issues. They state that they reflect similar sentiments to those of early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony. Abortion is a last resort measure that women turn to when they feel as though they have no other options. FFL believes that we have all failed those women because they should always have another alternative. One of their prominent slogans says that "Women Deserve Better than Abortion."
Interestingly, this group was formed in 1972, which is around the time that Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Since then, their efforts have been "shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence." I am intrigued by the nonviolence component, especially with the recent incident involving the doctor who performed abortions in Kansas. I was watching Anderson Cooper 360, and he interviewed Dr. Warren Hern about the incident because Dr. Hern also performs late-term abortions (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/06/02/ac.doctor.killed.cnn). When Anderson mentioned that nonviolent groups and individuals spoke out against what happened, Dr. Hern said that those statements are "hypocritical nonsense." He believes that people really wanted this to happen. These two positions seem to contradict one another, and I am curious to know how the FFL would respond to his comments. Personally, I do not feel that the entire anti-abortion movement is glad about what happened. I feel that pro-life people have a value for human life (and I believe that should also include being against capital punishment and war). I would like to think that this group would speak out against the actions of the gunman.
Rather, this organization seems to be focused on educating people and encouraging them to participate in the process. Their website includes promotional materials as well as videos and information that explain their stances on certain topics. They also have members who travel around to various college campuses in order to speak to the public. One example of this is a speech delivered by Angelica Rosales (http://www.feministsforlife.org/video/i-am-that-exception.htm). Her mother's doctor (and others) advised her mother to get an abortion at age 42, but her mother refused, and as a result, Angelica is leading a full and healthy life. Moreover, Melissa Ohden's biological mother attempted to abort her, but the abortion was unsuccessful (http://www.feministsforlife.org/video/index.htm?r=52). Nowadays, she is also living a productive life, even having children of her own. I feel that testimonies like this are much more influential in terms of achieving a goal as compared to shooting a doctor while at church. Furthermore, the goal of giving women more opportunities is very admirable, and I think that it is just one possible peaceful way to reduce abortions in America.
Their website provides many links to various information relating to both abortion and other feminist issues. They state that they reflect similar sentiments to those of early feminists, like Susan B. Anthony. Abortion is a last resort measure that women turn to when they feel as though they have no other options. FFL believes that we have all failed those women because they should always have another alternative. One of their prominent slogans says that "Women Deserve Better than Abortion."
Interestingly, this group was formed in 1972, which is around the time that Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court. Since then, their efforts have been "shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence." I am intrigued by the nonviolence component, especially with the recent incident involving the doctor who performed abortions in Kansas. I was watching Anderson Cooper 360, and he interviewed Dr. Warren Hern about the incident because Dr. Hern also performs late-term abortions (http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2009/06/02/ac.doctor.killed.cnn). When Anderson mentioned that nonviolent groups and individuals spoke out against what happened, Dr. Hern said that those statements are "hypocritical nonsense." He believes that people really wanted this to happen. These two positions seem to contradict one another, and I am curious to know how the FFL would respond to his comments. Personally, I do not feel that the entire anti-abortion movement is glad about what happened. I feel that pro-life people have a value for human life (and I believe that should also include being against capital punishment and war). I would like to think that this group would speak out against the actions of the gunman.
Rather, this organization seems to be focused on educating people and encouraging them to participate in the process. Their website includes promotional materials as well as videos and information that explain their stances on certain topics. They also have members who travel around to various college campuses in order to speak to the public. One example of this is a speech delivered by Angelica Rosales (http://www.feministsforlife.org/video/i-am-that-exception.htm). Her mother's doctor (and others) advised her mother to get an abortion at age 42, but her mother refused, and as a result, Angelica is leading a full and healthy life. Moreover, Melissa Ohden's biological mother attempted to abort her, but the abortion was unsuccessful (http://www.feministsforlife.org/video/index.htm?r=52). Nowadays, she is also living a productive life, even having children of her own. I feel that testimonies like this are much more influential in terms of achieving a goal as compared to shooting a doctor while at church. Furthermore, the goal of giving women more opportunities is very admirable, and I think that it is just one possible peaceful way to reduce abortions in America.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Justice Sotomayor?
Today, I read an article from the New York Times that dealt with the strategy and decision-making that went into the process of selecting Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the Supreme Court. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28select.html?_r=1&ref=politics). With much of the recent news focusing on President Obama's judicial nomination, the public is being exposed to a wide assortment of information that tends to say very different things. This particular article focuses mostly on the preparation that went into the president's decision, from soon after he was elected up until recent events. Only a few weeks after being elected, President Obama began developing an idea about who he would nominate if a position would become available. Throughout the entire process, Obama often felt drawn to Sotomayor. Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, essentially said that she was always the favorite, and the only way that she would not have earned the nomination was if she were somehow knocked "off the pedestal." The administration also asked that "activists not ... lobby for their favorites in the news media or talk down candidates they opposed." Nonetheless, Obama called every member of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Grassley (R - Iowa) mentioned that this was the first time in 29 years that a president had contacted him about a nomination. Obama also called around in order to double-check her reputation among others. Unlike the drama that occurred during the episode of The West Wing, the Obama administration was prepared well in advance, even before Justice Souter announced his retirement. Everything about this decision seems to be very strategic and well-thought-out. The journalists, Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney, seem to have a positive tone about this fact because they thoroughly reported on the intricate details that the administration focused on throughout the nomination process. They appear to be in support of the president and his decision, for they covered the topic adequately while not mentioning any of the negative reactions that people are having in the media these days. Many people are concerned about her potentially racist remarks (among other things), yet this article did not touch on this issue at all. Surely, the administration new about her background and her various works, but this piece does not state whether the president thought this was a major concern or not. Instead, the article deals more about the behind-the-scenes work and the thorough job that Obama and his team did.
Between this article and the video from Politico, Sotomayor's experience seems to stack up to many of the other qualified possibilities. President Obama said that she not only had a "brilliant" legal career, but she also acquired wisdom from "an inspiring life journey." Her career spans three decades and includes time with "almost every level of our judicial system." In the Times' article, a Harvard law professor said that Obama considered five main points: age, experience, independence, confidence, and diversity. At the age of 54, she appears to exemplify these qualities. She would certainly have an impact of the court for many years to come. As we discussed in class, she tends to be a moderate, which usually creates less controversy. Unfortunately for Sotomayor and many Democrats, her confirmation is already being contested in the media before the Senate has even had a chance to meet with her. In the Politico clip, President Obama said that a judge ought to recognize the limits of the judicial role and understand that a judge should only interpret, and not make, laws. However, a video found within the Times' article shows Sotomayor making a comment about the court of appeals being a place where policy is made. Others feel that she should not rely so much on empathy when she makes decisions. On top of that, some individuals (including Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and former representative Tom Tancredo) have found one of her previous statements to be rather racist in nature. In talking about how her past life experiences help her make wise, informed decisions, she brought race into the picture. One caller to CNN posed the question of whether or not Obama would have nominated Sotomayor if she had said that her background made her more qualified than a black man. I find it very interesting that race continues to be such a prominent issue in our culture. The commonsense solution is to simply have people stop considering race, but people refuse to accept that as a viable option. Instead, people believe that the way to overcome racism is to continue to consider race until conditions are equal. One guest on CNN went further with regards to Sotomayor by saying that a group she is affiliated with goes as far as to promote Hispanic rights over other rights. These are just some of the important issues that will be talked about until the Senate makes a decision regarding this nomination. While the New York Times' article overlooks some of these criticisms, it does point out the long road that has led up to this point before we approach the even more difficult path ahead.
Between this article and the video from Politico, Sotomayor's experience seems to stack up to many of the other qualified possibilities. President Obama said that she not only had a "brilliant" legal career, but she also acquired wisdom from "an inspiring life journey." Her career spans three decades and includes time with "almost every level of our judicial system." In the Times' article, a Harvard law professor said that Obama considered five main points: age, experience, independence, confidence, and diversity. At the age of 54, she appears to exemplify these qualities. She would certainly have an impact of the court for many years to come. As we discussed in class, she tends to be a moderate, which usually creates less controversy. Unfortunately for Sotomayor and many Democrats, her confirmation is already being contested in the media before the Senate has even had a chance to meet with her. In the Politico clip, President Obama said that a judge ought to recognize the limits of the judicial role and understand that a judge should only interpret, and not make, laws. However, a video found within the Times' article shows Sotomayor making a comment about the court of appeals being a place where policy is made. Others feel that she should not rely so much on empathy when she makes decisions. On top of that, some individuals (including Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and former representative Tom Tancredo) have found one of her previous statements to be rather racist in nature. In talking about how her past life experiences help her make wise, informed decisions, she brought race into the picture. One caller to CNN posed the question of whether or not Obama would have nominated Sotomayor if she had said that her background made her more qualified than a black man. I find it very interesting that race continues to be such a prominent issue in our culture. The commonsense solution is to simply have people stop considering race, but people refuse to accept that as a viable option. Instead, people believe that the way to overcome racism is to continue to consider race until conditions are equal. One guest on CNN went further with regards to Sotomayor by saying that a group she is affiliated with goes as far as to promote Hispanic rights over other rights. These are just some of the important issues that will be talked about until the Senate makes a decision regarding this nomination. While the New York Times' article overlooks some of these criticisms, it does point out the long road that has led up to this point before we approach the even more difficult path ahead.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
A Day In Congress
Response to "Today in Congress" by David Waldman (May 20th, 2009)
When I first browsed the Congress Matters' article, a few items stood out to me. Initially, I was surprised to find that I was scrolling for some time before I reached the end of the page. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that the site contains a detailed description of the various plans for the committees and subcommittees. In reality, the House had two votes to conduct, one for HR 2352 and one for a Senate amendment to HR 627. Then, I also noticed many of the topics we discussed in class today. For instance, the Senate had to file any amendments to HR 2346 by 1 pm because of Rule 22 that applies to votes when cloture occurs. This fact implies that a member (or members) of Congress tried to filibuster the bill. Clearly, this is an appropriate example of how the information we acquire during class applies to life situations.
One practice that struck me as odd during class was depicted in a recent action by the Senate. The House was voting on an amendment that the Senate added to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009; amazingly, the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with credit cards at all. The amendment actually had to deal with the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ability to carry guns in national parks. This is a clear-cut example of how people in Congress spend time dealing with "politics" rather than helping the country. Some of the Senators simply voted in favor of this proposal because they wanted to be perceived as pro-gun while they believed that the House would ultimately defeat the new amendment. This is similar to both the reading and the presentation in class; sometimes, unrelated items get attached to bills so that those measures will have a greater chance of being passed because people (particularly, the president) do not want to oppose the entire bill simply because of one detail. Personally, I have a problem with this practice because truly necessary legislation will likely be passed through Congress and the president on its own. What ever happened to discussion and persuasion? If someone can develop a well-reasoned, rational argument for a particular action, then people should be more open to pursuing that course of action. To me, the current procedure seems to be another example of how representatives look out for themselves and their constituents at the expense of the whole nation (sometimes). I feel that we need to figure out a way to take the "politics" out of politics. We need to put aside all of the twisted practices of politicians and recognize what is best for the nation. Perhaps, this is why the Founding Fathers tried to limit Congress to certain powers because they understood that most things would be better left up to the states.
With that being said, we unfortunately have to live with the fact that Congress has abused some of the clauses in the Constitution to deal with many different issues. Between the Constitutional powers and the interpretted powers, Congress has become a complex organization of a range of committees and subcommittees. The House Appropriations Committee considered 7 different topics from 10 am until after 2 pm. Although I do not know the exact members of each committee, I would imagine that representatives often have multiple meetings scheduled at the same time. This is more obvious with the Senate schedule because it was organized according to time. At two points during the day, four committees were meeting at one time. Even though Congress members do not spend a great deal of time role call voting each day, they remain extraordinarily busy with all of their responsibilities. I am not surprised that people are dissatisfied with Congress because our representatives are constantly occupied with various activities that slow down the legislative process (especially since every representative tries to benefit his/her constituents). Looking at this schedule has provided me with more reasons to believe that changes need to be made with regards to the operations of Congress.
When I first browsed the Congress Matters' article, a few items stood out to me. Initially, I was surprised to find that I was scrolling for some time before I reached the end of the page. Upon closer inspection, however, I realized that the site contains a detailed description of the various plans for the committees and subcommittees. In reality, the House had two votes to conduct, one for HR 2352 and one for a Senate amendment to HR 627. Then, I also noticed many of the topics we discussed in class today. For instance, the Senate had to file any amendments to HR 2346 by 1 pm because of Rule 22 that applies to votes when cloture occurs. This fact implies that a member (or members) of Congress tried to filibuster the bill. Clearly, this is an appropriate example of how the information we acquire during class applies to life situations.
One practice that struck me as odd during class was depicted in a recent action by the Senate. The House was voting on an amendment that the Senate added to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009; amazingly, the amendment had absolutely nothing to do with credit cards at all. The amendment actually had to deal with the Second Amendment of the Constitution and the ability to carry guns in national parks. This is a clear-cut example of how people in Congress spend time dealing with "politics" rather than helping the country. Some of the Senators simply voted in favor of this proposal because they wanted to be perceived as pro-gun while they believed that the House would ultimately defeat the new amendment. This is similar to both the reading and the presentation in class; sometimes, unrelated items get attached to bills so that those measures will have a greater chance of being passed because people (particularly, the president) do not want to oppose the entire bill simply because of one detail. Personally, I have a problem with this practice because truly necessary legislation will likely be passed through Congress and the president on its own. What ever happened to discussion and persuasion? If someone can develop a well-reasoned, rational argument for a particular action, then people should be more open to pursuing that course of action. To me, the current procedure seems to be another example of how representatives look out for themselves and their constituents at the expense of the whole nation (sometimes). I feel that we need to figure out a way to take the "politics" out of politics. We need to put aside all of the twisted practices of politicians and recognize what is best for the nation. Perhaps, this is why the Founding Fathers tried to limit Congress to certain powers because they understood that most things would be better left up to the states.
With that being said, we unfortunately have to live with the fact that Congress has abused some of the clauses in the Constitution to deal with many different issues. Between the Constitutional powers and the interpretted powers, Congress has become a complex organization of a range of committees and subcommittees. The House Appropriations Committee considered 7 different topics from 10 am until after 2 pm. Although I do not know the exact members of each committee, I would imagine that representatives often have multiple meetings scheduled at the same time. This is more obvious with the Senate schedule because it was organized according to time. At two points during the day, four committees were meeting at one time. Even though Congress members do not spend a great deal of time role call voting each day, they remain extraordinarily busy with all of their responsibilities. I am not surprised that people are dissatisfied with Congress because our representatives are constantly occupied with various activities that slow down the legislative process (especially since every representative tries to benefit his/her constituents). Looking at this schedule has provided me with more reasons to believe that changes need to be made with regards to the operations of Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
