December 27, 2014
CIA Torture Reports
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/07/369262235/congress-clashes-over-release-of-cia-torture-report

We've talked a bit about this in class but I would like to offer my view on the subject. A few weeks ago the senate, particularly Dianne Feinstein, released a report of the CIA using advanced interrogation methods, torture, on over a hundred prisoners. Different methods included water boarding, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, confinement, and others. Different government leaders fought against release of the report arguing that we've had this discussion and put an end to the torture, that this will endanger our troops around the world because this will only aggravates terrorists, and even that the methods worked. If you want to see some entertaining arguments for that side watch the fox news people talk about it and how "awesome" America is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw70wFszZDQ Dianne Feinstein along with others wanted this released because the public needs to know about what their government has done. Not to mention the violation of international treaties and laws that we signed about the illegality of torture. Many people have spoken up about it but there is a general attitude of putting this away by many politicians and CIA officials
What has been going on at the CIA prisons where these tortures have been taking place is highly illegal and should not be the way our nation is represented. In my opinion these tortures should have, first of all, never taken place but the report of these should have been released a while back. America is awesome but we have made several mistakes and as painful and embarrassing as they may be we have to accept them and take responsibility so we can be the better nation that we desire to be.

December 18, 2014
Sony Hacked By North Korea
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/12/17/north-korea-sony-hack/20558135/

This isn't the only article about the hack but this one is a pretty good summary of what has happened so far. If you are interested in more or other details just Google "Sony Hack" and sit back and enjoy.

Sony was set to release the film "The Interview" on Christmas but has canceled the release due to terrorist type threats and also their company's database was hacked and had over 100 terabytes of data stolen with much of that content being leaked. US officials have linked this hack to North Korea and blame them for the cyber-attack. "The Interview" is a movie about American talk show hosts who score a interview with the leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un and are asked by the CIA when they interview Kim Jong Un if they will assassinate him. North Korea was appalled at the spectacle of a movie like that being released so they hacked the Sony database stealing private information like people's personal information, emails, social security number, and scripts of movies Sony yet plans to release and leaked a good chunk. They also issued threats to Sony saying that if they go ahead with the release of this movie. So Sony almost being held hostage gave into the demands of the terrorists.

There are many angles to look at this with many issues at hand with even more reactions and actions that could've, should've, would've been different. But to keep the content more concentrated and restricted to context that this is for a AP Government class I'll keep my comments more directed towards that. While I do not support exactly what's in the movie I do respect the right that Sony holds under the constitution that they are allowed to say it and release it. Like what Voltaire said "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." North Korea obviously has more restrictions and different laws concerning freedom of speech but however, Sony is not in North Korea or any part of their jurisdiction and should not have to suffer something this serious which is projected going to lose Sony of a half a billion dollars. There is an extreme invasion of freedom of speech and also privacy and it should not be ignored by anyone especially our government. With our own government's faults too in the past, it it not one's country responsibility or does it retain any kind of right to command or force another country to act, believe, or behave in a certain manner. Yes, what Sony did was extremely unethical and disturbing but if North Korea released a movie about assassinating Obama tomorrow it would freak me out and I would never support or watch it but I would not complain about their right to do so.

  

October 24, 2014
Amendment C: Appointment of Legal Council for Executive Officers
http://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Appointment_of_Legal_Counsel_for_Executive_Officers,_Amendment_C_%282014%29
The final amendment that is being put up for election is an amendment that would allow executive officers specifically the leuitenant governor, state auditor, and state treasurer to appoint their own legal council. How it currently stands is that the attorney general handles legal affairs and advises these officers as well as the governor. This amendment passed through the House of Reps and Senate unaminous besides one vote in the senate.
Arugments for this amendment are that with the events that have happened in recent years has proven the fact that the attorney general is not enough legal council that is needed for all the executive officers. This would allow to have these executive officers to choose their own legal council instead on relying on the attorney general who they didn't choose.
The opposistion to this amendment make some points about how that it is a good enough system to have the attorney general be the legal advisor for all of these of these officers. The attorney general ensures that what ever is being done is all in line with the law and that there won't be contradicting opinions.
I actually have to side with the one Senator on this. I think that the attorney general is placed with his athourity in such a way that there is a check and balance between high powers in our state government. The amendment is an reaction to the whole John Swallow affair. If this amendment passed and the lieutenant governor, state auditor, and state treasurer could appoint their own legal council don't you think they would surround themselves with 'yes men' to contradict their opponents. The attorney general provides stability and there isn't an issue with how things are.

October 20, 2014
Amendment B 2014: Election of Appointed Lieutenant Governor
http://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Election_of_Appointed_Lieutenant_Governor,_Amendment_B_(2014) 

Amendment B that is going for election this year is a change in the election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor. It the current system if a governor steps down or of the such the lieutenant governor will become the governor than will appoint someone to be the lieutenant governor that will be ratified by the legislature.  The new governor and lieutenant governor will be subject to election at the next election whether it be the regular four year cycle or midterms. In the case the next elections are midterms the newly appointed governor is subject to that election as well as the next election in the four year cycle. With this system it is possible for the governor and lieutenant governor to serve different terms and be from different parties. A governor could serve four years while the lieutenant governor is subject to election.
The new amendment makes it so they are elected together every four years. If there is a vacancy in governor the lieutenant governor will fill that spot then appoint the new lieutenant governor that is ratified by the legislature and then will be subject to election at the four year cycle. The new format is like the current format with the president and vice president.
Opposition for the amendment comes from only one legislature member who says "Our current rules for replacing the Lt. Governor preserve a principle that is fundamental to our elected Republic: we use elections to choose our political leaders... the constitutional tinkering of Amendment B could double the chances of the Governor’s office becoming vacant and an unelected Lt. Governor filling the vacancy. Why on earth would we want to increase the chances of having a Governor we never elected?"
I understand argument being made by the opposition and it's exactly what happened with President Ford becoming the only President in our history not to be elected. In the grand scheme of things we by representative democracy are still voting for the new  lieutenant governor. I like the new amendment because we get to have the governor and lieutenant governor be elected together and rids the chances of forcing two people who don't want each other as our governor and lieutenant governor.

October 13, 2014
Amendment A 2014: Qualifications of Tax Commission Members
http://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Qualifications_of_Tax_Commission_Members,_Amendment_A_(2014) 

Even though the majority of us in class can vote, I thought I would post about the three amendments being proposed to the Utah Constitution this coming election. While I and others get a chance to vote it would be awesome to hear opinions from everyone.
Amendment A is a change to the qualification of the members on the state tax commission. How it currently stands is that there are 4 members in total and there is a rule that no more than two members from a single party are allowed to be on the commission. The proposed rule would eliminate that current rule and make it alright to have more than two people from a single party on the commission.
Arguments for the amendment include that while it's nice to maintain bipartisan its hard sometimes to find the most qualified members in all the political parties. Eliminating it would allow for the most qualified people to be on the tax commission.
Arguments against say that it is a complete partisan amendment that if a single party had complete control of the tax commission it wouldn't allow compromise and equality in say to be prevalent.
My opinion is against this bill. We have discussed this tons of time in class about screw the other party over politics and gaining more power and authority over the party politics. Big surprise Utah is heavily heavily republican and do you think that this republican proposed amendment isn't a play to gain more political power? I'm not trying to sound anti-republican but I for difference of opinions and compromise shaping our government and tax commission which has a great effect on us the people.

September 29, 2014

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: We're Headed for Oligarchy

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/04/nobel-prize-winning-economist-were-heading-for-oligarchy/361200/ 

This article was mentioned and talked about in class and I decided to do some more digging into it. 

Nobel prize winning economist Robert Solow back in April posted a review on a book by Thomas Piketty's called The New Republic. Particularly he went off about effects of income equality and the concentration of wealth in the top 1%. He mentions, what we were talking about in class, that more and more government is not about governing for the right reasons and also why we have a government but being controlled by people with large amounts of money. "If that kind of concentration of wealth continues, then we get to be more and more an oligarchical country, a country that's run from the top." Solow said. He isn't the only economist to use the word oligarchy when reviewing this article. In Solow's review of Piketty's book he analyzes what he says and explains what trends and theories he is suggesting and offers his own opinion to make an economy or country to favor merit over inheritance.

Here is a link to Solow's review http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed 

 

I read a good part of Solow's review and will finish it later but it really is a fascinating reading. It has a lot of really good points about income inequality and I would recommend it. I personally am still gaining knowledge and a stronger opinion on the subject but I do think that the wealth distribution is way to out of wack. With millionaires and billionaires inhabiting our country with people who are barely earning enough income to own a apartment, pay for food, shelter, etc, and provide for a family does seem cruel and unjustifiable but it is also a free market economy does and that is how our economy is set up. My question is should government regulate income more to allow there to be more equality so people can live better lives?

September 23, 2014

How Obama came to launch strikes in Syria  

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/obama-syria-strikes-policy/index.html?hpt=po_c1

Yesterday the United States began air strikes on the terrorist group named ISIS in Syria. Already were there air strikes in Iraq against ISIS but Obama wants to neutralize them on multiple fronts. The Presidents decision came after consent of congress and also support from other Arab nations. Along with the increased air strikes and also air strikes in Syria Obama reported that he launched an air strike against another terrorist group that stemmed from al-qaeda.

Obama has taken on a world stage to take on ISIS with support from other nations. Around fifty nations have rallied support for Obama and the fight against ISIS. He has called for a meeting with the UN to discuss this issue.

Obviously there have been a lot of posts and comments on the subject of ISIS and I though I would weigh in as well seeing that it has now escalated. I agree with Obama and the actions he is taking. I honestly think what he has done so far has been great handling of foreign policy and the situation at hand. ISIS is a terrorist group who has called out serious, dangerous, and very real threats against America and its people. The threat has to be neutralized. The main problem and question that arises is should America delve deep into this issue in the Middle East? I think in our past experiences and problems that we encountered and caused in the Middle East and particularly Iraq we do hold somewhat of a responsibility to the people there. I do think we should keep an appropriate distance and take logical steps so that we don't get stuck further in the Middle East and also that we don't hurt the nations there and make them less self sufficient.

Semptember 9, 2014

Five reasons Obama's delay on immigration

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/obama-immigration-5-things/index.html?hpt=po_c2

After stating earlier this year to use his executive powers to push along immigration reform, President Obama anounced that he would be putting his plans on hold until after November elections. Obama announced his plans after the House refused to pass a bipartisan reform bill that already passed the Senate. The move angered Latinos and democrats who were pushing for executive action and were hoping for more things to have been accomplished. And despite the fact republicans are against Obama's plans they're still using this to critisize him. Obama's delay is political and here are 5 reasons why.

1. Obama wishes to delay the reform till after the elections in November this year to keep the focus on voting. In a tough election year for democrats it will detract some of the attention away from issues that may hurt democrats chances for spots in the house and senate.

2. It avoids giving republicans reasons for accusing Obama of overstepping his power as President. Many were not happy hearing Obama saying he will use executive action to refrom immigration in the first place and many are still upset about health care reform who accuse him of abusing his power. 

3. Democrats and Obama won't have to defend to themselves for a move that has been made unpopular in the past year because of the influx of child immigrants. 

4. It puts the pressure on the republicans in congress for not voting on the bill that passed the senate. Immigration is a problem and democrats have worked on it and now its turning the negative attention on the republicans for not working to pass and fix something that needs fixing.

5. It is a move that is more down the politcal middle rather than leaning more left than right.

Its obvious that there are problems in immigration in  our nation today and it does need to be fixed. It really frustrates me that republicans in congress make it their agenda to ruin the agenda of the democrats and Obama instead of trying to debate and compromise on the issue. The bill was bipartisan through the senate and the speaker of the house John Boehner refused to put the bill on the floor in the house of reps. Thats inaction on the part of house of reps and republicans and so I support Obama for going out there and trying to get something done on his own. When they aren't doing something and you can respond and make change do it (of course within the bounds of the law and constitution). 

September 3, 2014
Why Governor Rick Perry of Texas is in Trouble
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/02/politics/rick-perry-indictment/index.html


The District Attorney of Travis County in Texas Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested on charges of DWI. She was pulled over and had a blood alcohol level of .239 and had to be aggressively restrained while being arrested and put in jail. Being of such a high and respectable position in government she was asked by people in her District to step down. She refused to step down and continues to serve as the District Attorney.
How was Gov. Perry involved in all of this? He joined in all of the other voices demanding her to resign. When she refused he threatened her to cut out funding of the program she was involved in which ironically investigates wrong doings in public officials. Immediately after the threat extreme liberals and democrats of the state of Texas indicted Gov. Perry for over using his powers arguing that while he is allowed to veto and defund he is not allowed to use that to threaten people into doing things.
Many people are seeing this as a scheme being between democrats and republicans. Lehmberg a powerful democrat in the republican majority of Texas being threatened by Gov. Perry who is a hopeful for the republican presidential nominee. Gov. Perry being a republican being indicted by hard core democrats.
Gov. Perry has been indicted but the real question comes across is did he really break the law? Is it illegal for him to threaten to use his power and authority as governor? Did he overuse or misuse his power?

On this issue with so many questions looming I think overall everyone is not acting in the way they should be acting. Obviously Lehmberg shouldn't have be drunk driving and should step down from a respectable position. Gov. Perry went about the wrong way on trying to get her to resign which ultimately turned attention away from her and put it on him. The liberals who indicted Gov. Perry for something which honestly isn't against the law. Even though he didn't act with great respect or etiquette  for the power but its not illegal and it seems they're just those people who linger around waiting for the bad in the world to come around just to exploit it. Gov. Perry should have never threatened to use his power because of the mess it caused and how irrational his threat was. But Lehmberg should step down. In such an important and public position such as that it is her responsibility to treat it with respect or suffer the consequences of being reckless while in that position.