Democracy Assignemt

This week's blog question:


1.  Should corporations be granted the rights of citizens?

   - Think of corporations as neutral (neither good nor bad)
   -  Think about their role in a democracy, should they play a large part in decisions?





or


2.  Should the 1st Amendment right (to free speech) be granted to "terrorists" who translate Al Qaeda materials or publish anti-American articles on blogs or websites?

  -  Think of the Tarek Mehanna case (the Sudbury man who is currently on trial)
  -   When does hate speech go to far?
  -   Do we always have the right to criticize or condemn?  Is there a limit to free speech?


Good luck.

Remember to frame your article into 3 distinct paragraphs:  intro, opposing viewpoint, and your analysis/conclusion.

Do not forget to list 3 facts (with sources, if you'd like) with your article.  These can either be in box or in a list at the bottom of your blog.

*Also, keep reading the Wes Moore book.  The blog post for this book is due on Veteran's Day.  That's Friday, November 11.

Read read read!  Write write write!

Democracy Now

This week, we discussed some current challenges of American democracy.

Democrats and Republicans seem to locked in an era of radical partisanship with no end in sight.  This partisanship has infected the mass media, government institutions, and even mainstream America.

Let's face it, America is facing some extreme challenges these days.  It is no wonder that there are extreme measures being taken by both parties.  The Democrats have attempted to alleviate these problems by getting the government involved.  The Republicans want the government out.

One party sees government as a tool.

The other sees the government as the problem.



America's confidence in this government is at an all time low.  The president can't get anything passed, congress can't come together on any major legislation, and the American people are (literally) taking to the streets.

How did we get here?  Why did we vote for these people?

Maybe we were caught up in the hype that the political ideologues have created.  And maybe there are more powerful forces behind the scenes.

Case in point: Citizen's United vs. the Federal Election Commission

This 2010 Supreme Court decision overturned a centuries old law that limited campaign contributions of organizations, associations, and corporations.



But when the conservative documentary company went to court to defend its critical film of Hillary Clinton (then a contender for the Democratic nomination for president), the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in their favor, citing the first amendment.  But this case had greater consequences.

Corporations, organizations, and associations were granted the all the rights of U.S. citizens.  If they have the right to the first amendment, then they must be granted all the rights, as if it were a person.

Are corporations now considered "people"?

Citizen's United and its conservative supporters view this decision as a great stride for democracy.  They feel that companies should not be silenced from speaking, criticizing, or supporting political candidates.

Liberals, on the other hand, have reacted with great concern and alarm.  They claim that corporations will now have the power to throw millions of dollars into political races.  All of this money may manipulate elections.  They fear that corporations will have the power to decide elections through lavish donations, and they will support any politician that will help them profit.

Who is right in this case?  It's a doozy alright.

The first amendment is a crucial freedom in this country.  Imagine if the government no longer allowed movies to be made, articles to be written, or pundits to speak their minds?  Would that be censorship?  Free speech is a cornerstone to American freedom. Maybe Citizen's United has a point.

But then again, most Americans feel that there already is too much influencing Washington.  The candidate who raises the most money is the candidate who can reach the largest audience.  Lobbyists for all sorts of companies and organizations spend money on politicians so that they will vote in their interests.



In the first election after the Citizen's United case (the 2010 midterm elections), corporations and interest groups spent $300 million dollars on supporting candidates.  That was more money spent on one election than in the past ten years - combined!   Obviously, corporations are ready and willing to throw their money in.  

Republicans won back the House of Representatives and cleaned up in most elections.   Is this why Democrats are so upset?  What if there were major corporations ready to contribute to their party?  Would they then support this decision?



On the surface, this decision gives a huge advantage to the Republican party.  They are seen as the "business friendly" party, since they support lower corporate taxes and less regulation for these industries.

Democrats recognize this advantage and claim that corporations now have the power to basically appoint cronies who will always vote the way the companies want.  This may mean less environmental regulations on energy companies and huge tax breaks for multinational corporations.  

We watched two videos in class that had two different points of view.  The Citizen's United video celebrated this decision, why the other video clearly denounced it.

What do you think?    

Questions for Book Project due November 11

Hey everyone,

I hope that you're enjoying the book so far.

As you read, consider these questions.  For your assignment, I'd like you to write a blog post that answers the following 5 questions about the book.  Each answer should be about 2 paragraphs in length.  This assignment is important.  Please read and write carefully.  Email me at professorjeglinski@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Good luck!


Questions for Blog:


1.  How are both Wes Moore's alike?  Give some background information that discusses the similarities between the two men and their respective histories. 

2.  Discusss a turning point in both boy's lives, where they seemingly learned from a mistake and took some action to try and correct it.  What decision or action did they take to "straighten up" their lives.

3.  What affect did these boys' parents have on their personal development.  Discuss how each's mom and dad may have influenced them.  Who was around?  How did they help or hurt their son?

4.  What did this book teach you about human behavior?  Think about life, change, and the idea of fate.  Are there similar patterns between these two boys?  Are these patterns found in all people?

5.  Crititque:  What did you like about the book?  What didn't you like about the book.  Give a brief book review that explains your reaction, and if you thought the book was influential.

The Other Wes Moore has Arrived

Hey class,

Now that you've received your (free) copy of Wes Moore's book, The Other Wes Moore, you should start peeling away at the pages.  Read some of it everyday.  Enjoy it with a coffee or at night before bed.

It is a light read.  It's fast paced and interesting.

I thought that this book would be suitable for this class for many reasons.  The simplest connection I can make is that Wes Moore discovers the other Wes Moore in newspaper.  But that's too easy...

This book is interesting because is exposes human nature.  As we discuss our various viewpoints in class, it's important to understand the background of peoples' choices and opinions.  When we discuss politics, and read opposing viewpoints, we must trace the root of someone's (or an institution's) analysis.

Ok, we know what they believe, but how did they reach that conclusion?  What makes people think this way?  Why don't I agree with them?   (or why do I agree with them?)

As we debate topics and dive into the American (and world) political scene, it's important to know where people are coming from.   By tracing knowledge and opinion to the root, we can then start to figure out how to teach, how to influence, and how to change.

If someone cannot relate with you, how can they convince you of anything?  Sometimes, as the observer, you need to be the one trying to connect.  It's a two way street.

We are much more connected than it initially seems.

Yes, we may often have more in common with our rivals and "enemies" (intellectual) than we believe.

And that's where this book comes into play.  The author, the "good' Wes Moore confronts someone (of the same name), who grew up in a similar neighborhood, with similar circumstances.  Yet, the two men take two separate paths.  One becomes a successful man, the other is still serving his life sentence in prison.

Can you tell which one is the "good" one?

The question is: how did they go down diverging paths?  Was it coincidence?

It's much more than that.  It comes down the details.  The little, minute choices we make a daily basis.  It comes down to, not the mistakes that we make, but how we choose to bounce back from them.

I also thought that this book is a great supplement to our Justice in America class that we conducted two weeks ago.  We discussed the idea of reform.  Are some people inherently "bad"?  What are we to do with them?

This book may open your eyes to the system, and put a face and history to a man that many people (including a jury) considered "bad" or "evil".  You may agree or not.  But was this person not a simple human being when he was growing up?

You decide.  But always consider the history, the whole history, before you put you foot down.

I hope that you enjoy this book.  Think about the choices that you've made, and how you've bounced back from conflicts in your life.  We all have them.  We're all human.  But we all take different paths... on our way to a similar goal.

Read the book.  Enjoy the book.  Share the book.

Will Technology Outpace Us?

Last week we discussed technology and its affects on our society.

With great advances in communication, the medical field, the military, and entertainment, humans are becoming evermore dependent on digital devices.

There are clear benefits to these innovations.  Lasers, computers, cameras, and robots have equipped those in the medical field to deepen their research, develop medicines and vaccines, trace diseases within the body, and perform intricate, delicate surgeries that save lives.

In the field of communication, new technologies have given the world population greater access to information.  As consumers, we can have access to information from a growing number of sources (sites, blogs) twenty-four hours a day.  We can access headlines from our bedrooms and debate with friends around the globe in real time.  Sites, such as Wikileaks (or even TMZ) are able to publish dangerous, or scandalous information.  We, as students, can publish our own ideas, thoughts, and opinions through such networks as Facebook, Blogger, and Twitter.

These technologies have also been credited with enhancing education.  Smartboards, computer labs, and even the iPad have crept into classrooms with great appeal.  These technologies allow students greater access to information and provide new platforms for creativity.  Interactive education has won the day.  Even in lesser developed parts of the world, where the quality of education is slim or nil, students are learning new skills through YouTube tutorials (check out the Khan Academy).




But are there negative affects to the influx of technology in our lives.

We are now susceptible to new dilemmas, such as online scams, spam, identity theft, and hacking.  Are we relying too much on technology, or is this just the scary, infant stages of the Age of Information.  We share more now with a world that may (or may not) be watching.  We have digital footprints that can be traced, saved, and stored.  Our online activities are monitored by Google and Facebook and are sold to advertisers.

Where is the line?

Will we always be so apprehensive, or will we just get used to all of this connectivity?



Because the technology  is not going away.  In fact, it is expanding everyday.  Are we changing it, or is it changing us?





A recent NYU study claims that Google is actually effecting our memories.  Its authors claim that the human brain no longer needs to remember so much data, because Google does it for us.  This may sound like a creepy sci-fi premise, but it is not necessarily a bad thing.  Maybe this is evolution.



According to the study, our brains no longer need to remember the finer details of information.  We just need to know how to access it and where to go for it.  We need to remember the paths to such information.  Knowing the way to may actually be more important than knowing it itself  (Hmm?).  We no longer need to memorize certain data, because, thanks to Google and other sites, that information will always be available.  We just need to know how to get to it.

Weird?  This is the Age of Information.

The Death Penalty Debate

The recent execution of Troy Davis in Georgia was quite controversial.

The prosecution had no physical evidence linking the suspect to the murder of an
off-duty police officer in 1998.  Davis was present when the scuffle ensued in an Atlanta
parking lot.  But no physical evidence connected him has the trigger man.

Troy Davis was consistently adamant about his innocence in this crime.  After a long
appeals process, the case seemed to fall apart for the prosecution.  Seven out of nine
eye witness recanted their testimonies, with several of them stating that they were pressured,
or coerced by law enforcement.




Despite the growing evidence in his favor, Troy Davis was executed this past September.
Although he had received support from the pope, Amnesty International and over one million petitioners calling for his pardon, he was given the lethal dose of toxins in an injection.

This incident, which was heavily covered in the national media, has made some Americans question
the purpose and civility of the death penalty.

Is it really a deterrent?  Does it make murderers think twice?

There are many angles to look at in this process.  Many proponents of capital punishment support it as
appropriate justice.  They claim that some people are simply too dangerous to be part of our society.  They cite rapists, murderers, and pedophiles to be the types that should have their rights revoked and their lives terminated for the safety of society.

Some of these capital punishment supporters also cite the grievance that tax payers have to support these criminals while they serve their terms.  Food, shelter, television, gym equipment - all of these features of prison  (not to mention the cost of staffing these institutions) are paid for by law-abiding citizens.  They do not feel that this is just situation.  Why should we, as a society, pay to sustain the life of someone who has no respect for human life?



Then there are those who wish to abolish the death penalty in America.  All of Western Europe and most developed nations in the world today have scrapped the death penalty in their countries.  Capital punishment opponents have been protesting the act of execution as far back as the Enlightenment in Europe.  They claim that civilized societies have no right to take the life of any person.  It is a human rights issue.  Opponents also say that, since our justice system is imperfect, there is a chance that we are executing innocent people.  They also make that claim that putting criminals on death row is actually more expensive, when one considers the costs of the lengthy appeals process.

They also tend to support prisoner reform.  As humans, these folks can be rehabilitated in jail and given a second chance.  They support life sentences, where a prisoner is able to live out their days in dignity.  They may find spirituality, they may repent, and they may be able to make positive change.



The feud goes on...

Here are the big questions:

Is it worth executing 50 guilty criminals, if one innocent person must be executed as well?


Should states have the power to take a life?


What is the difference between  justice and revenge?  Is it a thin line?


Can people be reformed in prison?  Are there some people that cannot conform to society?


And what is to be done with the mentally ill?  Are they an exception to the execution rule?


How does race play a role in legal decisions?  Are we living in a post-racial society?   Equal justice?

Assignments and Updates

Hey class,

Great job today.  I thought that we did well, trying to tackle the issue of crime and punishment in America.  Of course, we focused on the extremities involving the case of Troy Davis and capital punishment.

I remember having to write an essay on the topic in high school.  At the time, I was very adamantly pro-execution.  I wrote a pretty rough article and titled it: "Free 'em or Fry 'em?"

My teacher was horrified by it.  Funny how time and life will change the things that you think you're so sure of.
Sometimes you have to see things from all angles before you decide.   And it's okay to change your mind.
Maybe you should (someday).  Life keeps changing, so must we.

Here's a recap of this week's assignments.

1.  If the group members could email me their points from the article activity we did in class, that would be splendid.  I'd like to take a look at your summary skills and discuss the elements of good slides before our group projects.  Speaking of...

2.  Email your group members and decide on a topic.  Brainstorm and narrow down your topic.  Try to choose something that we've touched upon.  But you will go into further detail.  Zoom in.  Also, you should start to delegate tasks and break up the work.  Communication is key.

3.  Blog.  Your article this week should answer/explore the question:  Should the U.S. ban the death penalty?
Please submit your blogs by Wednesday.  Some of you are trying to sneak them in on Thurs.  Points will be deducted if you don't make the deadline.

4.  Bring in an article next week about technology.  What's hot?  What's next?  How has technology effected our society (lately)?   This will be are focus next week.

Remember: an observer will be in our class next week to monitor what's going on.  She will be monitoring me mostly.  Please be on time.  When we discuss issues, please be as professional as possible.  We did a great job today discussing an explosive topic.  Let's all keep up the good work and learn from each other.


Have a great holiday weekend!

Global Weird-ing

There are those who choose to believe...

The warming signs, the documentaries, the overwhelming scientific support.  The concept of "global warming" became part of the American consciousness after the success of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.  The environmental movement in America is centuries old, but in the 21st century, it has become a mainstream issue/concern/debate.

But the term "global warming" has seemed to have subsided.  Since the "great depression", the momentum behind the green movement has been stalled.  With harsh criticism, an incident of research scandal, and a political wing that politicized the issue, many Americans are thinking twice about this "threat".

Both liberals and conservatives can agree that the Earth is getting warmer.

But they disagree as to why.

Liberals contend that our planet is warming due to the influx of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.  Some scientists have traced this incline in temperatures back to the industrial revolution of the 19th century.  With evermore machines, consumption, and production by the human race, comes the expansion of our carbon footprint.



Conservatives have increasingly become skeptical of "global warming".  Their doubts and criticisms, many of them being personal attacks against Al Gore (former Democratic presidential candidate), have fostered doubt and disagreement over the "threat" of climate change.

Some of the pundits have flat out disputed the scientific research.  They claim that there is no empirical evidence that links rising temperatures with the industrialization of man.  They question the cause.

And with this doubt, they scoff at the idea that our society has to slow production.  If we slow production (to meet Cap and Trade standards, or to lower our Co2 output), we will slow the economy.  Why should we forfeit progress?  Again, they see climate change as a naturally occurring phenomena.  Even for those conservatives who believe that humans have damaged the environment, they claim that the economic cost is too much.  Close the factory?  Pay to go green?  All of these modifications are costly.  Why invest in a weaker power solution, like wind or solar, when the U.S. is full of coal and natural gas?

Then there is the geopolitical issue.  Can the U.S. afford to limit its production, while newly emerging economies such as China and India up their production?  If they do not agree to lower carbon emissions, will the U.S. bow to its competitors?





Ah, that's right... the gas!  

So, we have an "addiction" to foreign oil.  A fairly new solution has come about with the extraction of shale gas.  There is a large supply of natural gas within the Marchellus Shale, located in the North East of the United States.

 

This gas-filled area could be the solution to some of the nation's energy dependence issues.  In order to extract the gas from miles under the earth's surface, energy companies have to drill.

"Fracking" is currently the most commonly-used technique for natural gas extraction within the Marcellus Shale.  By forcing water and other chemicals (like formaldehyde) down the shafts, to break up rock and extract the gas, these companies doing some potential harm to the local water sources.  There are several studies, videos, and documentaries coming out that show the devastating effects that fracking can have on the local environment.  The most threating occurance has been the tainting of wells and water supplies.

America is, again, stuck in a position.  Environmentalists have come out blasting the gas mining companies for piping toxins into the water table.  But at the same time, there is an energy solution at the bottom of those shafts.  With the economy in decline and jobs in high demand, this new energy project has some potential.

Doesn't America have to take advantage of this natural resource in its own back yard?

Think about the politics behind this issue.

Think about the pro's and cons.  See what adds up.

What will save the day here?

Is global warming too far off to interest Americans?

Can the U.S. afford to go green?