Discussion 15

5. What are valid reasons for the United States to engage in foreign wars? Is pre-emptive war justifiable? Explain.

Engaging in foreign wars is valid when our own people are endangered, when a major human rights violation is occurring (i.e. genocide), when our economic stability is directly threatened, and when there is a threat of sworn enemies of the US coming to power and gaining strength and weaponry. I think that pre-emptive war is only justifiable if altercation is clearly imminent. I don't think that the doctrine should allow for lackadaisical military action. If there is an urgent threat to our allies, as well, we should offer aid to them, as a matter of principle. 

Tommy Fiszel:
I think what you said about engaging in foreign wars is valid when our own people are endangered, when a major human rights violation is occurring, was a very good point. 

Discussion 10

4.  Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to put term limits in place for Supreme Court justices, say for 10–12 year terms, after which they would no longer be able to serve on the Court?

I think not. My reasoning is that if the Presidents continually appoint new Justices every so often, there will be a steady, albeit slow, flow of newer thought into the Supreme Court. The good thing about having long (life) terms for Supreme Court Justices is that there is an unlikelihood that the Supreme Court will vacillate greatly in its interpretation of the law. If our Justices are appointed by different Presidents and are of different ages, I feel that the Supreme Court will be more balanced. I don't see any harm in having the life-terms, because even 10-15 years, the suggested term limit, is a pretty long time for a person to be in a government appointment.  So, I feel that it will create no greatly negative effects. 

Tara Greiving: Hi Dana, 

I think this is a very clear explanation. I also agree I think having the same one for long terms helps with consistency in the court rooms.

Kristen McPherson: Hi Dana!

I think your thought on having one long term instead of different shorter ones will definitely help keep things the same in the court room. But also having some change could be good.

Discussion 14

#3: Discuss why the immigration reform bill of 2007 did not produce reform?

The Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 did not produce reform because even though a couple different versions were produced, there were several attempts made at compromise, and there were several revivals of the bill, it failed to get a needed vote to stop debate and move on to a final vote.  Its major downfall was the heated criticism and debate and the inability to gain enough Senate approval to get a final vote. 

Discussion 13

#3 - A study of household inequality in eighteen developed countries found that the United States had the most unequal distribution of income. Why is that? What can/should the government do about this?

An unequal distribution of income is caused here by our capitalistic economic system. Many of the other 17 developed countries are not as capitalistic as America. The United States having an unequal distribution of income should not be drastically addressed by the United States Government. I align most closely with Equality of Opportunity, allowing for personal advancement via one's own effort, clever ideas, creativity, hard work, and character. I think that governmental welfare programs that help people who are struggling to attain minimum needs for survival (food, clothing, water, shelter, medicine, etc) are good, and that having them controlled by the government ensures that all those in need will actually have provisions available to them. I also strongly advocate for at least free 2 year degrees. I believe we should encourage higher education as a means to rise above low incomes and dead-end jobs. I think that welfare programs need to continue easing recipients back into the workforce so that they will not be living on welfare for the rest of their lives. I also don't want to see a massive minimum wage. I believe in raising the populace to a higher level, not the minimum wage. 

Discussion 12

#3 - Civil disobedience is defined as the willful but nonviolent breach of unjust laws. How might this be applied in today’s political climate

Civil disobedience in today's political climate can take form in many ways. Here are some of the methods of late that come to mind. I think of the #blacklivesmatter "die ins". Also, many recently engaged in civil disobedience regarding the Keystone XL pipeline:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/03/1281795/-The-398-arrests-for-civil-disobedience-in-Sunday-s-anti-Keystone-XL-protest-are-just-the-beginning# (Links to an external site.). Also I think of the demands of fast-food workers for higher wages elicited some arrests as they obstructed roadways or blocked traffic. http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2014/09/04/fast-food-workers-demand-higher-wages/15060063/ (Links to an external site.) 

Discussion 11

2.  When it comes to defamation of character, the press is given greater latitude when it comes to public figures than with private citizens. Is this appropriate? Why or why not?

I think that it is important that the press can freely analyze the actions and morals of public figures, especially political figures. That said, if they had less latitude, they would be subject to a great amount of litigation just from stating facts. The individual being written about could easily sue on the grounds of defamation, even if that was not the motive of the press. They would do this to avoid negative press. This actually does happen even now with the great freedom the press has. It even happens when private citizens try to spread the word on negative aspects of corporations and politicians. But, it does not happen to near the extent that it could. I believe this is appropriate because of the need to protect the privacy of citizens and to have the freedom of press to hold prominent people and organizations accountable. 

Discussion 9

4) Why do the terms bureaucracy and bureaucrats seem to have such negative connotations for most Americans?

Bureaucracy and bureaucrats are seen negatively by most Americans due to several factors.  

a) Oftentimes, the main way Americans have interaction with bureaucrats and bureaucracies is through government. Sometimes these bureaucracies slow down things for citizens or make things difficult for them. 

b) Many bureaucracies have highly paid executives or executive teams which have large salaries and are often seen as big spenders(wasteful).  Bureaucracies as well as their bureaucrats are seen as wasteful, since the seemingly endless processes and forms and "red tape" cost money as well as time. 

c)Another prominent reason that Americans may view bureaucracies/bureaucrats in negative light is the opinion that bureaucracies provide poor service and do not relate well individually to the needs of those they serve. An example would be getting an automated answering service rather than a "real person" when you call in to an organization.  

d) Those who oppose "big government" push these ideas and use the idea of "bureaucracies are bad" to try to further their small government ideas. 

This article is about how bureaucracy is actually good, and attempts to debunk some of these main ideas about bureaucracy. The article refers to them as "myths" but I am not sure they are really myths. Maybe they are concerns that are overblown a bit, but I don't believe the concerns are totally imaginary-i.e. a myth. But I am curious as to what others and Dr. B think about the ideas presented.  

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=20&print=1 

Dr.B's response:

Dana, when I went to work in Topeka in the mid 90s, I was surprised to see the quality of work and the dedication of bureaucrats as I had a very negative opinion about them from things I had read and heard in the media. With our frequent and often disruptive elections, the bureaucrats are actually the ones who keep our government functioning while the politicians are experimenting. They are the glue that holds things together and stop utter chaos. There are thousands of dedicated and talented bureaucrats who are given a bad name by the far fewer bad apples in the mix.