DREAM Act Fails to pass Senate

This Saturday, the controversial DREAM Act effectively died in the Senate after failing to get enough support to overcome a Republican led filibuster. The formal title of the bill is the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. The act originally was introduced about a decade ago in 2001. The bill would have given illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children a path toward eventual citizenship. It also would have covered those immigrant who went to college or joined the military. The bill had support from liberal Democrats and immigration activists, who staged rallies, sit-ins and even hunger strikes to raise support for the bill. The legislation was fiercely opposed by conservative Republicans, who argued that the bill would be, in effect, amnesty for illegal immigrants in the country. The Act had been passed through the House of Representatives last month with a vote of 216-198.

The final vote in the Senate was 55-41, which meant that supporters of the bill lacked one crucial vote to break a Republican-led filibuster. Only a cloture vote, which requires 60 votes, would have broken the filibuster. Such a cloture was supported by three Republicans, but a majority was not reached when five Democrats voted against it. Passage of the bill would have been a key victory for Democrats and President Obama, who are seeking to pass through as much legislation as possible through the "lame duck" session of Congress before Republicans take control of the House next year. In a statement after the vote, Obama called the defeat of the bill "incredibly disappointing" and also pledged not to give up on the cause of immigration reform. More disappointed, however, were activists who were in the Senate chamber to witness the vote. Reportedly, as the crowd was leaving the chamber, some were seen to be crying over the blow.

Sources include:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46573.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/18/dadt.dream.act/index.html?hpt=T1
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-pn-senate-dream-20101219,0,4190962.story

The Contract With America: How did it Affect the Country?

In 1993, soon after the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Republican leaders, among them soon to be Speaker Newt Gingrich, Tome DeLay, and future Speaker John Boehner, introduced a document which they claimed outlined the  laws they planned to pass once in office. This document, titled the Contract With America, would, according to the Republicans, "restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives". These laws would apparently be instrumental in making a government that would be more fiscally responsible and less wasteful with tax payers money. The Republicans promised to bring these laws to the the floor of Congress within the first 100 days of the new Congress.

The Contract With America featured eight major reforms that would "restore the faith and trust" of citizens in the government. The statures are listed below as follows:
1. "Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress
2. "Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse"
3. "Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third"
4. "Limit the terms of all committee chairs"
5. "Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee"
6. "Require committee meetings to be open to the public"
7. "Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase"
8. "Guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

The first of these reforms was the Fiscal Responsibility Act that would establish an constitutional amendment aimed at requiring Congress pass a balanced budget unless sanctioned otherwise by a vote of three fifth's from both houses. The Taking Back Our Streets Act was an "anti-crime package" that primarily was aimed at strengthening law enforcement and criminal laws. The Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act would be incentives for small business's. In short, all of these laws were aimed against the perceived wasteful spending Washington was attached to. The previous two years of the Clinton administration had been unpopular with the public. The Republicans promised to bring conservative measures to Washington.

The Contract With America had mixed results overall. Some measures, such as the Taking Back Our Streets Act passed through Congress easily, while others, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act, were either watered down, or struck down by presidential vetoes and court orders. The Contract is still a controversial issue debated today. Conservatives praise the measures as the way toward reforming Washington society. Liberals criticize it for being overly conservative and radical.

Oil & Gas Lobbying

Of the many lobbying organizations in this country, the oil lobby is most certainty one of the most influential. As oil is one of the main sources of energy in America, and across the world, the corporations that drill oil have considerable influence with nations and governments. Each year, lobbyists for different oil companies spend millions in capital cities, from London to Washington DC, promoting the interests of the company they represent. Because of such lobbying, laws and legislation can be passed by federal and state governments that are "favorable" to the industry. Oil companies have the most influence in states where oil drilling makes up a large percentage of that nation's economy. In Texas, about 37,204 new oil wells were constructed in 2009 alone. In states such as Texas, the state's majority party, the Republican party, is pressured by lobbyist to voice their interests in Washington. A common stereotype is that the Republican Party is mainly influenced by the industry, since many come from oil-drilling states, though in reality, this is true for both Democrats and Republicans. In the event of oil spills, the companies responsible will lobby hard to convince the government and citizens that it is a reliable corporation. The recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the damage control campaign launched by BP is the most recent example of this.

 An emerging lobbying arm in Washington is the drilling of natural gases in the United States. The use of natural gas has come recently amidst widespread concerns that the country is becoming too dependent on foreign oil. Natural gas seems to many to be an appealing replacement from oil. However, the natural gas industry has also gathered immense influence and power in the lobbying world of Washington. More and more natural gas companies employ lobbying firms to promote themselves in federal and state governments. As viewed in the documentary Gasland, natural gas drilling sites number by the thousands across the nation. Drilling of natural gas also has hazardous risks, with the likelihood of pollution if released into the atmosphere. Though it is similar to the oil industry in that regard, the public at large, because of the industry's promotion as being more "green" friendly, views the natural gas industry more positively than oil.

Sources include:
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/15195985-1.html

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/84123-natural-gas-lobby-steps-up-to-challenge-coal

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/

http://greenanswers.com/q/182523/energy-fuels/fossil-fuels/oil-petroleum/what-state-has-most-new-oil-wells-drilled-every-yea

Questions for Josh Fox

1. Why did you decide to film your receiving the letter asking you to lease your land?

2. Did you already have a documentary in mind before receiving the letter?

3. Do you know what the situation with the families you interviewed is now?

4. What are some of your future projects?

5. Will you do any more documentaries on hydraulic fracturing?

The Electoral College

The Electoral College is the institution responsible for electing the President of the United States of America. Presidential elections in America are not direct popular votes, but rather work through the electoral college. The College originates in the United States Constitution, placed there by the Founding Fathers to ensure that the common masses would not have too much influence in selecting the President. Though suffrage has now been extended to all ethnicities and genders, the voting process still is controlled by the electoral college.

The system is comprised of delegates from each state, who vote for a Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate on Election Day(November 4)  every four years. Delegate numbers are based on the number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives from an individual state and the two senators from that state. The process for choosing delegates varies depending on states. Most states employ a popular vote or a "winner take all", which means that if a candidate receives a majority of of the popular vote, that state's delegates go to that candidate. The main exceptions are Maine and Nebraska who choose delegates based on the popular vote and the popular vote based in each congressional district.

The candidate who is the first to receive 270 electoral votes wins the presidential election. In certain elections, there have been cases where the candidate who won the electoral vote did not necessarily win the popular vote. John Quincy Adams in 1824 was the first president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Including Adams, four presidents have won the election with only the electoral vote, the most recently being George W. Bush in 2000. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the election is decided in the House of Representatives, who cast their votes for a candidate.

Since its foundation, the electoral college has received both praise and criticism. Supporters say that the college is democratic in a number of ways. The delegates chosen allow states to be represented according to population, allowing more populated states to have a greater say than less populated ones. Opponents argue that the system is actually undemocratic for exactly the same reasons. They also claim that the college hampers voter turnout, as voters feel that they have no say in electing a president. I would say that, despite its clear flaws, the electoral college is not fundamentally wrong as opponents make it out to be. The flaws in the system do not happen so spontaneously as opponents claim, and actually runs pretty well. Replacing the system, indeed would only make the election process more complicated and would hurt American democracy instead of progressing it.

Sources include:
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/procedural_guide.html

How to Bring Balance to the Budget

An assignment given in class today required us to visit a link entitled Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget from The New York Times website. In this activity, we had to decide whether we wished to cut spending for a particular government program or policy or to follow an initiative which would raise taxes in a specific area. The ultimate goal of this activity was, of course, to have "successfully" solved the deficit problem.

Below are my final results after I had managed to solve our country's deficit problem, starting with tax cuts


Tax Cuts
Regarding tax cuts, I took aim at what I saw as wasteful spending. Earmarks were the first to go. Although they only make up a small proportion of the deficit, they are synonomous with wasterful spending in Washington. Farm subsidies also went becasue it is pointless for the government to fund farms that continue  to fail and not produce results. Since the federal bureaucracy is large enough, I also cut jobs in the federal workforce, as well as government contractors.  In the military, nuclear warheads and some weapon programs were scrapped. I also pushed for the reduction of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan by 2015. Beside that, I made no major cuts in military spending, recognizing that the country is currently engaged in warfare and cannot afford serious slashes to the military budget.  In medicare, one of the greatest cuts I made to the deficit was from capping Medicare growth in 2013. I also pushed for reform in medical malpractice and tightened eligibility requirements. If my budget balancing doesn't take off, I'll at least be remebered for advocating medical reform in America.

1) Eliminated earmarks - $14 billion

2) Eliminated farm subsidies - $14 billion

3) Reduce the federal workforce by 10% - $12 billion to $15 billion

4) Cut 250,000 government contractors - $17 billion

5) Other cuts to the federal government - $30 billion

6) Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending - $19 billion to $38 billion

7) Cancelled or delayed some weapon programs - $18 billion to $19 billion

8) Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 60,000 by 2015 - $51 billion to $149 billion

9) Enact medical malpractice reform - $8 billion to $13 billion

10) Cap Medicare Growth starting in 2013- $29 billion to $562 billion

11) Tighten eligibility for disability - $9 billion to $17 billion

Tax Hikes
I only enacted a few taxes, half of which followed the Obama administration mode. Since I no longer wanted to make any more tax cuts, I would have to resort to some high taxes to fully defeat the deficit. The Obama intiatives were agressive enought to combat the problem(though in real life, I wouldn't be as enthusiastic).  A major tax was on persons  with an income over $1 million. It wouldn't be a popular move among the affluent, but it is a large souce of revenue for the federal government.  I also eliminated tax loopholes for tax breaks on corporations but kept the taxes high. For similar reasons similar to taxing millionaires, as it is also a good source of income.

1) President Obama's Proposal (Modifying Estate Taxes) - $24 billion to $45 billion

2) President Obama's Proposal (Investment Taxes) - $10 billion to $24 billion

3) Millionaire's Tax on Income above $1 million - $50 billion to $95 billion

4) Eliminate Loopholes but keep taxes slightly higher - $136 billion to $315 billion

Ratio between Taxes and Cuts


Savings from Tax increases - 39%

Savings from spending cuts - 61%

"Lisa Murkowski reelected by write-ins"

Lisa Murkowski

Incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has won reelection this Wednesday through a write-in campaign. Murkowski, who ran as an Independent, defeated her two opponents, Republican and Tea Party favorite Joe Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams, for the Senate seat. Ever since the Mid-term elections two weeks ago, the ballots for the Alaska Senate race were still being counted. Recent counts showed that Murkowski had a 10,000 vote lead over her closest opponent Joe Miller. The Associated Press then declared this afternoon that Murkowski had won reelection. According to the Alaska Division of Elections, the final count showed Murkowski with 92,715 write-in votes, with Miller following with 90,448 votes. An additional 8,153 votes counted for Murkowski have been challenged by the Miller campaign. However, due to the senator's substantial lead already, it is unlikely that those ballots will make any difference. Though ballots are still being counted, Murkowski flew from Washington D.C. to Anchorage, Alaska to prepare for her victory celebration. Miller has not, however, conceded the race to Murkowski yet. In a statement, Miller said his campaign was prepared to review the vote records in "select precincts" Thursday and possibly Saturday, which Miller could then ask for a state wide recount. Despite Miller's delaying, the state Republican party seems ready to accept Murkowski's win and appear to be unwilling to offer Miller any more support. Murkowski had previously been a Republican but lost the Republican nomination to Miller. Undeterred, Murkowski stated that she intended to run as an Independent candidate. Since she had no endorsement of a major political party, Murkowski's campaign decided she would be write-in candidate. Being a write-in candidate meant that Murkowski would be only get votes if supporters wrote her name on the ballots in the write-in section. Polls had shown that the race between Murkowski and Miller would be close, with Murkowski holding a slight lead.


The link to the Politico article is below
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45290.html

"Red Over Blue" Summary & Analysis

In an excerpt from James Ceaser and Andrew Busch's political book "Red Over Blue", the authors attempt to clear common misconceptions about political divisions in the United States. The title derives its name from the two colors associated with the main political parties in America: Red for the  Republicans and Blue for the Democrats. The original background of these colors came from an illustration on the cover of The New York Times when it showed the results of the 2000 presidential election. Ceaser and Busch go on to explain how this image helped compound a misrepresentation about political life in America. Though Red states may appear to be overwhelmingly Republican, it actually has its fair share of Democrats as New England has its own Republicans. The meat of the passage concerns the 2004 election between Democrat John Kerry and incumbent Republican George Bush. In this election, the Republican Party not only held on to the presidency but also made solidified its majorities in Congress through gains in the House and Senate. Ceaser and Busch explain the issues that defined those elections and how "moral values" polled as the most important issue, actually were misread due to polling questions. A political analyst, Walter Dean Burnham, had earlier created a "realignment" theory which stated that a massive political shift would occur in the American political landscape because of a catastrophic or major event, and that such a shift occurred every fifteen years. Ceaser and Busch explain how this theory is untrue, since no severe events, including September 11, did not have an overall effect on political ideologies.  
 
This article is rather interesting in expunging long held beliefs held about politics. The illustration on the cover of The New York Times, the authors declare, is responsible for misleading the public about the divide between conservatives and liberals in America. The illustration cast the impression that political beliefs were limited to geographic regions. Other misconceptions were that the Republican sweep in 2004 was an actual political shift. As we know now, two years later in 2006, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress and later the presidency in 2008. That in turn led to predictions that the Democrats were the new dominant party. As of two week ago, we know that also to be false. This article shows how the political landscape of America is both fickle and traditional: what may seem different is only a cycle that repeats itself through every decade and will continue to do so. 

"The Rise of Southern Republicans" A Summary & Analysis

In the passage from "The Rise of Southern Republicans" authors Earl and Merle Black examine in great detail the history concerning the emergence of the Republican party in the South. In the 1850s before the Civil War,  the Republican party in the 1850s  had a presence in every region of the country except for the South. The essential reason for this was the Republican's staunch stance against the expansion of slavery, a position deeply opposed by the slave-owning south. After the Civil War, the Republican Party became viewed as a  hated "enemy" by Southerners, and as a result few Republicans were elected to Congress from Southern states or held positions in Southern legislatures. The Democratic Party dominated what was called "the Solid South" by appealing to racist sentiments held by Southerners against newly freed blacks. The political tradition remained in place for the rest of the 19th century and well into the mid-20th century. By the 1960s, two factors began to shift political loyalties in the South. Lyndon Johnson, a southern Democrat and proponent of civil rights, ascended to the presidency in 1963, and Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican from Arizona, won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1964. Johnson's passage of civil rights legislation angered conservative southerners. Goldwater's conservative stances on social issues isolated traditional African American support for the Republican party. Feeling abandoned by the Democrats, conservative southerners threw their support to Republican's who promised to slow down the pace of social change. Since the 1980s, the South has given its electoral vote to the Republican candidate in every presidential election.

The passage is very intriguing in its relating of the history of party loyalties in the South. When you think of the image of the Republican Party today, the White Southern stereotype is what usually comes to mind. Seldom do many people remember that the Solid South used to overwhelming vote Democratic. This proves that geography of a region does not matter as much as the ideologies that are abundant in that region. Because both party's catered to the beliefs held by many Southerners, they were able to secure their loyalties in the elections. This perhaps raises an interesting question for the future: if such a dramatic political shift can occur in one region, can it possibly happen in another? The Northeastern states tend to vote for liberal Democrats, with the exceptions of New Hampshire and Vermont. If a ideological crisis among liberalism were to occur, could a political shift occur in New England? Though conservatives remain in the minority, there is still a large amount of support for conservative policies. These questions may come to revelation in the near or distant future, depending on the issues that conflict  the United States at that time.

Cory Booker vs. Sharpe James part II

We finished watching the documentary Street Fight today in class after starting it Friday and posting a blog on the positive/negative/neutral tactics used by both campaigns. As the campaign for mayor of Newark reached election day, the campaign tactics used started to become incredibly ugly

"Street Fight" DVD cover

The Booker campaign had struggled throughout the election to raise sufficient funds to keep in the running. The Booker campaign stated that it had been able to raise $3 million thus far. However, Mayor James began to claim in public that Booker had been able to raise $10 million. Using this supposed estimate, James stated that the Booker campaign was attempting to "buy" the election. In other bizarre attacks by the James campaign, Booker was accused of "conspiring with Jews" to take over the mayor's office. The mayor accused Booker of having contacts and support from conservative Republicans. This claim in particular made many citizens wonder whether Booker was a Democrat at all or if he even shared the values of inner city black residents. The Booker campaign retaliated to these accusations with attack ads which smeared the mayor for his alleged excesses. However, Booker had to be careful with personal attacks on Sharpe James, who might spin the attacks to be on the city of Newark itself. Come election day, despite monitoring by the New Jersey District Attorney's office, James campaign workers were seen in various acts of sabotage against Booker, including tearing down Booker signs in defiance of a court ruling.

In what may seem more postive or neutral, each side attempted to win the black vote. To do this, international black leaders and figures were courted by both campaigns. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both supported Sharpe James, who even attempted to get Bill Clinton to endores him.

Cory Booker vs. Sharpe James

The documentary Street Fight follows the mayoral race in Newark, NJ between city councilman Corey Booker and incumbent mayor Sharpe James. Both campaigns engaged in a bitter election fight to ensure victory for their candidate. By doing so, they employed tactics which can be viewed either as positive, negative, or neutral.

Cory Booker

Both campaigns tried to focus on the positive aspects of their candidates. James ran on experience as a city council-member and in the mayor's office. His campaign touted the progress Newark had experienced under his administration. James had enacted reforms which replaced low income housing in the city, a sign of progress in the desperately poor city. Booker, on the other hand, campaigned as a new, fresher face in Newark politics compared to the long serving mayor. As mayor, Booker  promised he would bring real reform and change. His campaign style involved personally going from door to door of multiple neighborhoods in Newark to gather support.

Sharpe James

The negative side of the campaign overwhelmingly came from the James campaign. The James campaign used the police force to harass supporters of Booker, from threatening to shut down the business' of Booker supporters to taping the phones at the Booker campaign headquarters. During a rally for James, security intimidated the documentary camera man and evicted him from the event by claiming he didn't have permit. When a police raid on a strip club caught the Booker campaigns chief of staff outside the building, the info was leaked to the press by the James campaign, who called it disgraceful. The race also turned ugly personally when Booker was accused by James of being a "white Republican" which mainly implied that Cory was not "black enough" to connect with the city's black population. The Cory campaign struggled greatly as a result of these corrupt tactics by Mayor James. For its part, the Booker campaign at one point used an allegation that Mayor James had frequented that same strip club.

Despite the negativity of the campaign, both sides also used more neutral tactics in the election. Traditional rallies were held, as well as fund raising events. Both campaigns followed a policy of "If you feed 'em then you can lead them". This essentially means legal bribery of voters by hosting events which "gifts", mostly food. were given to people.       

Glen Beck: Conservative Talking Head

Glen Beck is the latest conservative political pundit to appear on Fox News. The Glen Beck Program appeared on Fox News in January 2009, a day in fact before Barack Obama was inagurated. Beck has previously had other talk shows and also hosts his own radio program. He also is an author of numerous political books, all which have become best-sellers. Beck, like other Fox News anchors, has plenty of controversy. A Libertarian, Beck has been harshly critical of the Obama administration and often talks about the threat liberals and progressives posse to America. He often goes on long rants against liberal officials, and may have influenced the outing of White House Environment czar Van Jones. His unique style of anchoring, as shown in the video, has garnered a huge fame base of conservative Americans. His influence in conservative politics is so great that he recently organized a rally in Washington DC titled "Restoring Honor" which he called Americans to once more embrace traditional values.
In this clip, Beck imploys a common practice on his program, looking back at American history and relating it to the present day. Beck here is talking about the 1946 mid-term elections, which saw a Republican sweep in Congress during the Truman Administration. Beck explains the similarities between this election and the current mid-term elections which may witness a Republican takeover of Congress.

Chris Matthews: Liberal Talking Head

Chris Matthews is the anchor of a political talk show on MSNBC called "Hardball with Chris Matthews". On this show, Matthews, a former Democratic political aide, has frequently expressed liberal sentiments on various political issues. He is somewhat of a polarizing figure in the media. He is often critizced by conservatives for controversial remarks he makes on various issues. Matthews is clearly an example of the "talking head" commentators that dominate political coverage on cable television.

In this clip Matthews interviews a representative from the Tea Party, and forcefully questions her on sentiments expressed by the Tea Party movement about President Obama. Matthews seems distasteful toward how the Tea Party is protesting, on how they are comparing Obama to a tyrant and how many of the signs contain strong anti-Obama messages. The interview swiftly turns into a three way debate between Matthews, the Tea Party member, and a representative from the NAACP, which had recently declared the Tea Party movement to be racist.

Robin Carnahan Attack Ad

Roy Blunt Attack Ad

Blunt v. Carnahan: Missouri Senate race 2010

One of the many close narrow mid-term election campaigns this year has been centered in Missouri Senate Race. Republican Congressman Roy Blunt is running against Democratic nominee Robin Carnahan to replace retiring Republican Senator Kit Bond. Third-party candidates also running are Jerry Beck of the Constitution Party and Jonathan Dine of the Libertarian Party.

 Roy Blunt represents the 7th District, located in Southwest Missouri, and deemed the most conservative part of the state. Before his election to Congress in 1996, he was active in state politics, unsuccessfully ran for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1992, and from 1993 to 1996 was president of Southwestern Baptist University. Blunt is generally conservative. He voted to ban partial birth adoptions, in which a fetus is surgically removed from the uterus, and has opposed funding for abortions. He favors prayer in schools and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment which would place a national ban on same-sex marriages. Like many other Republicans, Blunt opposed the health care reform bill favored by Democrats and the Obama administration.

Robin Carnahan is the Current Missouri Secretary of State since 2004. Her family has a tradition of participation in the Missouri Democratic Party. She has worked in her position to reduce red-tape for business, which are the creation of more government bureaucracy and oversight over the private sector. Carnahan is a liberal Democrat, favoring government oversight of Wall Street and financial reform. She has said that she would have voted for the health care bill and supported a public option.
The key issues of the race concern the economy and mistrust in the Obama administration. Both candidates are focusing on how they will both work to bring down unemployment in Missouri and how they will help small business. Polls indicate that 62% of Missouri voters support a repeal of the health care law, while only 37% oppose. 77% of Blunt supporters think the economy is worsening while 81% of Carnahan supporters think it is improving. The race so far is narrow, with Blunt leading by about ten points. This is not surprising considering Missouri is such a conservative state that has voted Republican in the last few presidential elections. We may safely assume that Blunt will be elected the next senator from Missouri.
Information obtained from Wikipedia.org, RoyBlunt.com, RobinCarnahan.com, Ramussenreports.com

Manchester Essex Regional Poll

17 students from the school were asked the following questions


1. Do you support the school's "Going Green" policies and initiatives?
a. Yes, I do support them- 47%
b. No, I do not support them- 0%
c. There are some parts I like & other parts I dislike- 29%
d. I'm indifferent to them- 23%
e. I don't know- 0%

2. Do you believe that your student council or government is doing a good job?
a. Yes, they're doing a good job- 23%
b. No, they're doing a terrible job- 12%
c. They're doing an okay job, though not perfect- 59%
d. I don't know- 6%

3. What do you think of the decision to take the 2011 class photo in front of the Memorial School Playground?
a. I think it's a good idea- 18%
b. I think it's a terrible idea- 53%
c. I don't know- 29%

4. What do you believe student council should be most concerned about?
a. Social events. such as class dances- 41%
b. Athletic events- 18%
c. Other- 41%

5. Do you believe that cell phones should be openly allowed in classrooms?
a. Yes- 23%
b. No- 76%

6. How do you think discipline is handled at our school?
a. Discipline is handled well by the school- 29%
b. Discipline should be stronger toward misbehaving students- 12%
c. Discipline should be lessened then it is now- 0%
d. Keep some disciplinary practices and get rid of other ones- 35%
e. I don't care- 12%
f. I don't know- 12%

The hypothesis of my poll was to determine how students felt about different school policies and decisions made by the school administration and student council. Each question was both related and different from other one's featured in the poll. I am confident that my polling was accurate enough for this assignment. I interviewed as many people that I could find. I started in the library in the morning, and then asked students in my classes. I  eventually was able to question 17 students. The factor that could skew my findings is that I asked more boys than girls. My polls may now have a greater leaning toward the opinion of boys, making it unclear how girls as a whole would have viewed my questions.

Deval for Governor

Democrat Deval Patrick has been governor of Massachusetts for the last four years. He is the first African-American to hold the position of Massachusetts governor. Patrick is originally from Chicago, where he grew up in the city's housing projects in a poor family. Through a non-profit organization, Patrick was able to attend Milton Academy and Harvard College. He later attended Harvard Law School.  Patrick served in the Clinton Administration as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. In that role, he served to prosecute cases of racial-profiling and hate crimes. In 2006, Patrick was elected governor with running mate Tim Murray against Republican opponent Lt. Governor Kerry Healey.

Patrick has many advantages for running a re-election campaign. He has the traditional advantage of the incumbency, where voters see him as an experienced politician, the proper one to lead Massachusetts through tough economic times. As a Democrat, he has the upper hand in being the governor of one of the most liberal states in the union. If most of the state's registered Democrats show up to vote, he has a good chance of re-election.

During his term in office, Patrick has made some unpopular decisions. His campaign for casinos in the state lead him into a fierce fight with opposition from both parties. Multiple scandals involving staff members has also hurt his credibility. Another infamous episode was when Patrick left the state during the casino debate to work out a book deal for his memoirs. During this election, Patrick faces opposition from his Treasurer Tim Cahill, who might split the Democratic vote.

I am personally not a supporter of Patrick.  I do recognize, though, the chance of his re-election in this liberal state. According to polls, however, Patrick and Republican Baker are almost tied with Patrick leading by a 1% advantage. If Republicans are able to muster the voter strength that swept Scott Brown into office, they stand a firm chance of unseating Patrick.

Charlie for Governor

Charlie Baker is the Republican candidate for governor, opposing Democratic incumbent Deval Patrick. Baker has history of serving in Republican politics and in state government. His father, Charles Baker Sr. worked in the executive branch under the Nixon and Reagan administrations. His son himself served Republican governor William Weld as Undersecretary of Health and Human Services in the 1990s. He later took the positions of Secretary of Human Health and Services and Secretary of Administration and Finance respectively during the rest of Weld's term. During his tenure as Secretary of Administration and Finance, he became directly responsible for financing the Big Dig Project in Boston. After leaving state government in 1999, Baker became CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. Under his leadership, Harvard Pilgrim received recognition from the National Committee for Quality Assurance, receiving the title of America's Best Health Care for five years in a row.

Bake has a built a sizable reputation over the years for his work in state government and the private sector. In a climate of anti-incumbency, Baker has a favorable chance of defeating Patrick in November. Much of the public's frustration is aimed at Democrats in power, who have seemed unable to effectively deal with the economic crisis. Given that Massachusetts voters elected Republican Scott Brown a US senator are signs that a conservative wave could give Baker a victory.

Baker still has to, however, compete in a state which is overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic. Most state residents are registered as Democrats. Patrick has the advantage of the incumbency, being that voters might not want to get rid of an experienced politician in such times. Baker also has to contend with the possibility that independent Tim Cahill could take votes away from him. If Baker does win, it will be a very narrow win. 

Tim for Governor

Tim Cahill is the current Treasurer and Receiver-General for Massachusetts who is running against his boss, governor Deval Patrick, which must make the situation extremely awkward for the two. Cahill used to be a member of the Democratic Party, but left the party to run for governor as an independent. Cahill was elected Treasurer as a Democrat in 2003. Before that, he was active in Massachusetts politics, serving in the Quincy City Council, and was the Treasurer for Norfolk County. He has claimed to have significant accomplishments while serving as Treasurer. The Massachusetts State Lottery reportedly 7.2 billion dollars, money which has been distributed to cities and towns all across the state. The Cahill campaign has repeatedly hammered this point in through in numerous ads, since this issue alone is what they believe Massachusetts voters care about the most.
 The Cahill campaign is running at a time when Governor Patrick's popularity is at a low, with citizens angry at the incumbent government for poor decisions (the casino fiasco). Many citizens are worried about the nationwide economic situation, how it affects them and their jobs, and are blaming the incumbent state government for being ineffective. Cahill can claim experience in state politics in, a moderate choice instead of a political outsider to lead them in such dire times. Even if you are a Democrat or independent opposed to Cahill, a vote for him could draw votes away from Republican challenger Charlie Baker, who is the more serious candidate opposing Patrick
Unfortunately for the Cahill campaign, any early energy is now losing steam. Cahill trails Baker and Patrick in the polls, making him less of a threat then he was before. Cahill's campaign seems to be falling apart, as top aides have deserted his campaign. A more damaging blow was the announcement on October 1, that Cahill's own running mate Paul Loscocco was stepping down and endorsing Charlie Baker. Cahill's chances of winning at this point are low, and we may find that he will not have much of an impact on the general election.

Jill for Governor

Dr. Jill Stein is currently running for governor of Massachusetts on the ticket of the Green-Rainbow Party. The Green Rainbow party is a merger of the Green party with the Rainbow Coalition. It supports eco-friendly policies, a more open, grassroots(funny), type of government. In political ideology, they can be considered to be left-leaning, as many of their policies echo the extreme liberal policies of the Democratic Party. The party is considered the third party of Massachusetts, as they have enough support to remain afloat, but lack the political power to be a major party. It's candidate, Dr. Stein is a co-chair of the party. She graduated from Harvard Medical School and currently serves on the boards of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility and MassVoters for Fair Elections. Stein ran for governor in 2002, losing to Mitt Romney, and then ran unsuccessfully for the state House of Representatives and Secretary for the Commonwealth.
Stein's support will mostly come from middle-age to older women, who are part of her generation. Liberals-leaning-to-socialists will also support her for her platform supporting eco-friendly intiatives, "fairer" voting practices, among other favorite pet causes of the left. However, Stein has managed to increase her base of support in recent years. During her 2006 run for Secretary of the Commonwealth, Stein ran solo against an Democratic incumbent, who was virtually unopposed. In the final voting tally, Stein was able to capture 18% of the vote, making her the highest scoring Green Party candidate ever to run for Secretary of the Commonwealth
Despite this, it is highly unlikely that Stein will win the governor's race. Third party candidates rarely ever win actual elections, whether it be for governor or president, though they may gain a good percentage of voters. It is also likely that the Green Party realizes this too, or else they've been walking around with their heads in the clouds for the past 20 years. The main reason for this run is to raise awareness to the issues which the Green Party represents.

Three Questions: 1 Vote Each

1. I would vote Yes on Question # 1. The sales tax adds on extra payment to alcoholic beverages purchased in the state. Like many other commodities, such as cigarettes and clothing, the government sees' such a widely purchased item as a source of revenue for the state treasury. The sales tax on alcoholic beverages may be a source for state government revenue, but there are other less important commodities that can be taxed in its place. This is particularly important as of right now, during an economic recession, we need to boost our states' economy above all else. Since New Hampshire has no sales tax on alcohol, many people go out of state instead to buy alcohol instead of buying in Massachusetts. Because of this, we are losing an important way of helping business' in our state to improve our local economy and to erode the recession.

2. I would vote No on Question # 2. The current state law in question is charged with building government subsidized housing for low income people and families. A zoning board of appeals asks a community or town for a building permit in order to start construction on a house. The ZBA seems to be an established organization, which already has strict impositions on it. It may not issue a building permit without the consent of the permit, and if a community finds fault with the ZBA's handling of the construction or other matters, it may appeal to the Housing Appeals Committee. As discussed in class today, it is sensible to spread poverty throughout the state evenly, and not just center it in one area. An area of poverty will only lead to an increase of the vices usually associated with poverty, notably crime, which may then spread to neighboring communities. This is already what communities who do not want low income housing fear the most, and it will most likely occur if the law is repealed. A repeal of this law and the organization responsible for carrying out it's duties is unnecessary and will do more harm than good.

3. I would vote Yes on Question # 3. The new law would reduce our state's sales tax from a rate of 6.25% to only 3%.  A reduction in the state sales tax is necessary during these hard economic times. A reduction in taxes is helpful in bolstering small business at a time when such business' need them the most. Raising taxes is never the correct solution to dealing with an economic crisis, especially since this nation is in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, if not in recent memory.  As with # 1, we have to invest in business throughout the state if we are ever to get out of this recession. The success of business and the private sector is always what has brought the United States out of it's worst economic woes. A reduction would also not be harmful to the state's revenue. The state already has a supply of wealth from property and excise tax, both which will make up for the reduction. We do not require any more unreasonable taxes on basic commodities, which are the key to economic revival. The availability of more consumer items will stimulate the state and benefit us more in the long run than keeping the current sales tax.

"When Preaching Flops" An Analysis

David Brooks argues in his article that preaching abstinence in high school does not generally have the desired effect it's supposed to have on teenagers. It is not for their lack of trying hard enough to reach out to students that is the cause of this. It is also not because such efforts are wasteful since teenagers are unlikely to listen to moral advice or commentary on sex. The deciding factor in this scenario, Brooks states, is the perception of human nature. Brooks touches on how the human mind will interpret a circumstance or situation that it comes in contact with, and then will create a pattern in the brain, which that individual will perhaps carry with them for a longevity of their life. Often these patterns come from our surroundings, where we live, how we live, and whom we come into contact with on a daily basis. This is an interesting overview by Brooks on the foundation of human nature. He provides a keen insight into how our social environment shapes our personality and characteristics, especially when explaining about how the functions of the human brain are responsible for this molding of ourselves. Brooks account is definitely recommendable material for those studying psychology and how the human brain works.

Truck Stop Confidential

1. The truck driver may vote either way. He seems to epitomize the typical blue-collar, working-class individual who is proud of their profession and suspicious of a different or higher class then they are. In politics, both the Democratic and Republican parties play on the issue between upper class elitism and ordinary working people in order to win that group's vote.

2.  The truck driver will be primarily interested in economics. He may be worried about how the state of the economy or government policies will affect him. Another likely factor may be dissatisfaction with government, either for it's policies or his view of them. He could view the government as out of touch with his needs and not connected to him at a social level.

3. Success may be viewed from your social status, whether you are upper middle class or a member of the affluent elite. A respected profession is often viewed as a point that that individual has reached success in their lives. Sometimes success depends on personal happiness that may stem from satisfaction with your professional or personal life.