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 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. 

Discussion 8

Prompt: 
What five (or more) important traits or qualities do you want your elected representatives to have?  

My response: 

Five important traits I want my elected representatives to have:

(1) Track record of fiscal responsibility

(2) Love of our country and our people

(3) Pro-life/pro-woman

(4) Pro-education

(5) Works well to coordinate efforts regardless of partisan affiliation

(6) Makes sensible decisions

(7) Not capricious; stands firmly on principles

Discussion 7

Prompt: Should former members of Congress be free to become lobbyists once they leave office?

My response:

Yes, for two reasons. 

(1) To restrict this would be infringing the freedom of both the interest group and also the ex-Congressperson.

(2) The whole reason for hiring ex-members of Congress is that they are knowledgeable about how the government works. They are highly desired for their experience. It makes sense for interest groups to hire members of Congress. Interest groups are fine and are an important part of the pluralist model. We don't want unqualified people running interest groups in America. I think it's best if we have great minds working in the interest groups and then they can all duke it out together. :)

Discussion 6

Prompt: How should public elections be run?

My response:

I have seen a lot of dissent about the electoral college. Many think that elections should be determined by popular vote alone. However, I think that the general populace has proven that it isn't willing to put in the time required to study each candidate and the issues thoroughly enough to make a good decision. The general public is very easily swayed by media and pressure from others. For the presidential election, the electoral college is an attempt to compromise between general election and representatives electing the president. However the electors in the electoral college nearly always vote according to party lines since they are largely chosen by political party. I honestly feel okay about the technical way our elections are run because I think that they do strike a needed balance. I wish however that it were more clear or publicized widely who the electors are and how they were determined to be in that position. I also wish there were more propositions and referendums on big issues.

Discussion 4

Prompt:  

In the United States, the mass media are predominantly owned by for-profit corporations. Do those companies have any particular obligation to the public in how they cover the news? Or, is their obligation to simply focus on returning a profit for their investors?

My response:

I think that morally, these corporations should be committed to providing truthful information to the public. However, even the most committed to honestly still may subtly instill a bias into their reporting. Also, from a Capitalistic standpoint, the media will do what it takes to continue receiving funding from their corporate owners. These two simple facts are why we as the public need to be discerning when processing data from the mass media. Simply asking ourselves "what are they really trying to say?" or "what message are they trying to imprint upon the public?" can go a long way in decoding the rhetoric so commonly seen especially in newspaper headlines, major television news channels, or opinion websites. The reason I mention rhetoric is because many reporters, writers, news anchors, and politicians are expert rhetoricians. They know how to say something and send a message that may not be overt. I am not saying we should be constantly fearing conspiracies or brainwashing, just that we need to realize that everyone has an angle, which is not a bad thing. It's only natural. We can have freedom from being tossed to and fro by the opinions of the mass media with a little thinkwork of our own. 

Third Discussion

Here are the options we had for discussion number three: 

1. Why do you think religion plays a role in forming our political ideologies, as the chapter suggests?
2. What role do recent technological trends--such as smart-phones, the decline of landlines, caller ID—play in making accurate polls either easier or more difficult to conduct?
3. What is your reaction to the case of Kenneth Biros?

I chose number 1. 

Here is my response: 

"Why does religion play such a role in forming our political ideologies? I would say that is because our religion(or in many cases choice of non-religion) is not only our deepest-held hopes and beliefs, but also our lens through which we see the world, come to terms with the evils in the world, and make our decisions. It only makes sense that our religious beliefs would come forth in our political ideologies. In many ways our religious beliefs come to be a large part of who we are. And since our government is for the people, by the people, our religious beliefs do play a part. How that fleshes out is often tricky, and rightly so, for the constant tension actually serves to create a perpetual act of protection of religious freedom and rights. "

My response to another:

David said:

"Personally one of the most disturbing things to me is homicide. I can not understand how someone can brutally kill someone or stab someone multiple times. Kenneth Biros should have been left in prison for the rest of his life, and not put to death. Killing someone does not make the person pay for what he or she did. Society needs to get rid of the bad people yes, but that is why we have jail/prisons. I did some research and found that it costs more money (tax payers) to execute an inmate than it cost to keep the inmate in prison for life. I am a firm believer in law enforcement and keeping the peace and order, but I do not think that we should waste money time or energy on hopeless individuals. If they chose to repent and save their soul that is their choice to make while they serve time. Our priority should be to catch these individuals and incarcerate them but not to kill them."

I replied:

"You make a good point, David, that life imprisonment gives a chance for repentance. I have a dilemma in my mind between justice and mercy. You are right that it is more costly to execute than to imprison. This is simply because of the expensive litigation and appeals process. An interesting piece of information regarding giving time for repentance is in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. His case is easily the most disgusting, heavy, mind-blowing series of murders I have ever read. After I read about it I felt physically ill for quite a few minutes. He was sentenced to 16 life-sentences rather than execution because his state had outlawed capital punishment in the late 1800s. At the end of his life, he is said to have repented and been baptized as a Christian. And he didn't care that he died. He felt he was sinning just by remaining alive. He was said to have not cried out while being bludgeoned to death in prison. Crazy stuff. Lots to think about. "

Freedom vs. Order Discussion

Original Prompt:
Considering what values are most important to you, is freedom more important than order? If there is an issue, such as airport security, how much freedom is the right amount an individual should have to surrender for his/her safety? 

My response:

"I think that freedom and order must be balanced. I don't think one is honestly any more important than the other, because order is needed to protect our freedoms. Without enforcement of order for myself, those around me may have their rights infringed by me.  In difficult situations, I think that there are a few considerations. The first consideration is the magnitude of the risk to others. The basic right is life. In the example given (airport security) the damage that can be done is great, so people should be willing to give some freedoms (a search of personal belongings, body scan with x-ray, etc).  The second consideration is that in that case, passengers are actually giving up some of their freedoms in exchange for the protection of their basic rights to life/property. Third consideration is that if they have nothing to hide, a minor inspection should not be too offending. So, I think that currently the giving up of some rights to privacy is a reasonable amount of freedom to require passengers to give up."

In Response to:

Article shared by Dr. B:http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Me: "I think that the 2nd Amendment article makes very good points, which very well may be why the Civil War was so violent, but may it also be that the Framers of the Constitution were also protecting our right as stated in the Declaration that "it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."? How would a people ever hope to wage a revolution without bearing arms? No government which wielded such power would give it up easily. I am not saying this needs to be done by any means, but that if we are to retain the right to choose a government for ourselves, the means by which that may be done in the face of tyranny and abuse must be retained."

Separation of Church and State Discussions

Original Prompt:
What does the separation of church and state really mean? Why did our forefathers feel this was such an important concept? This website may have some answers for this option http://www.au.org/ (Links to an external site.)

My Response:

Well I will preface this by saying that I agree with the Constitution's statements on the topic of religion. But it is important to note that "the separation of church and state" is NOT in our constitution. Quoting from the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That is IT. That is all the Constitution says to the matter. Is that restricting the Government or Religion? It seems to me that the statements are mainly separating the Government OUT of religion. How can the values of the people and the Government of those people be truly mutually exclusive? Maybe that is the tricky thing of our day. So many different value systems bringing conflict. Even the website prescribed for us, www.au.org (Links to an external site.) seemed hostile or condescending toward religion in many cases. The statement "separation of church and state" was in a personal letter by Thomas Jefferson helping him to further describe his ideas of the "importance of limited government to prevent its interference with religious activities"1. This statement was outrageously taken out of context from there on out. To say that our forefathers thought this was an important concept may be stretching it a bit, for most of the founding fathers may very well have never heard the statement. That is not to say that the concept of religious liberty was important to them. It obviously was. And they carefully crafted the Constitution to accommodate the incredibly diverse United States of today. We should all be thankful that the values of our founding fathers resounded to the sound of liberty and freedom and equality due to their Christianity. In many religions, the value system differs so greatly that we could not have hoped to have such a long-lasting form of protection for our liberties. 

1 A well-cited article (Links to an external site.) which goes further into the fact that "the separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution and the implications of that fact for religious freedom

Responses to Others:

(1) I agree Kody that merging the two would bring many of the same tyrannies that England had at the time. If you read the Declaration of Independence though, the tyrannies were much more all-encompassing than religion. The King was basically being a dictator to the States, in addition to ruling tyrannically in many ways in England, not in the least by instituting a Church of England, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, and requiring compulsory adherence to its dictates and the giving of money to the Church. 

(2) Hi Tami, I see that you said the church of England was Catholic. Actually the Church of England was the Anglican Church, which is Protestant. In our book it actually talks about how many Catholics were sadly persecuted in the revolution time. However, Catholic France was our ally. Interesting. I tend to agree with Taylor here that what they were wanting to escape was the government's tyrannical hand in their religion. They were forced to pay huge tithes to the government run Church. And they had to worship in the way of the Anglican church, which is according to this site

 (Links to an external site.) the same as the current Episcopal church. Imagine if the diversity of even America's Christian Protestant churches were pressed into the window of the Episcopalian practices. Of course they would want freedom from that.