Final Exam #2

At the beginning of the semester, my definition of a 21st-century citizen was limited. I only discussed the ability of citizens to keep informed on current events through analyzing media sources and bias. Throughout the semester, I have grown in my understanding of the role that active-citizens should play. Now, I know that citizens should be aware of the constitution and all the constraints placed on Americans because of it. The document guides the formation of our laws and the upholding of them. Without a basic understanding of it's role, it's impossible to understand the controversy behind many legal issues.
Also, a 21st-century citizen should be aware of the structure of their government. In America, it is increasingly important to understand the roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This understanding is necessary in order to vote for qualified individuals to hold these positions.
Voting itself is another important aspect of an active 21st-century citizen. Formulating their own opinions and growing in understanding and knowledge on specific issues, 21st-century citizens should be pro-active about politics. The internet, television, and mobile phones make staying on top of current events a reality.
During elections, it's important that a 21st-century citizen understand the political views of candidates. This is possible with an understanding of the political spectrum. Does a candidate fall to the left? Are they liberal? Moderate? A far-right conservative? These are the questions that should always be present in the minds of a 21st-century citizen.
With an understanding of candidates for elections, it is also pivotal that a 21st-century citizen be aware of how those candidates are funded. It is impossible that a candidate run solely on their own income, they receive donations and funds from outside sources. PAC's? SuperPAC's? Special interest groups? By dissecting the sources from which an individual is receiving funds, much can be learned about the character of a candidate.
Ultimately, a 21st-century should not be oblivious to the world of politics and government. Because these are the forces that guide and influence their lives, it is imperative they have an understanding of them.

Should marijuana be legalized in America?

The Controversy
Marijuana has forever been a part of American culture. In the 1920's, it's recreational use began to grow in popularity and many historians attribute this as a result of prohibition. During this time, the drug was legal and not seen at all as a social threat. According to Narconcon International, an organization based on educating and rehabilitating the public on drugs, marijuana was listed in the United States Pharmacopoeia from 1850 until 1942, illustrating clearly an understanding of it's health benefits has always been present.
So why the change in America's mentality? In the 1930's, a new division in the Treasury Department was created; The Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Many mark this as the beginning of the war on marijuana and a turn in American sentiment toward the prominence of drugs in society. In 1937, with the help of Yellow Journalism  portraying marijuana as an illicit drug, marijuana became illegal at the Federal level.
Fighting to Keep It Illegal
Many argue that marijuana should remain illegal and provide multiple arguments to support this stance. For example, marijuana is often considered a gateway drug that can lead to the use of more illicit substances such as cocaine and heroine. This argument goes as far as to suggest that perhaps legal marijuana will lead to the legalization of those harder drugs. There is also a concern regarding the increase of intoxicated drivers under the influence of cannabis. Because marijuana leaves no definite smell , unless a driver had smoked in their car, it would be very difficult to catch those under it's influence. Many  believe that the impaired judgement of marijuana users causes them to commit other more serious crimes.
Fighting for Legality
On the opposite side, there are many who want to see a repeal in the federal ruling on marijuana. Keeping the drug illegal is expensive for the American government. Money is poured into the DEA regulating and catching marijuana producers and pot smokers alike. This money would not only be saved if legalized, but more money could be collected through the taxation of the drug. Another major argument supporting legalization comes from those who want marijuana to be legalized for medicinal purposes. Many cancer patients use the drug as a way to stimulate appetite and prevent nausea. There are multiple states that have already legalized medical use of cannabis. However, federal law always towers above state statues and federal agencies can chose to close state-run marijuana businesses at anytime. Because of this, there is an ever-growing consent that states should be allowed to provide their own ruling on the drug. In fact, there are even inerest groups such as NORML whose primary goal is to overturn the ruling on the drug at the federal level.
Marijuana's Future in America
Because 17 states have already legalized marijuana for medical use, it would seem that the drug is quickly becoming more and more acceptable in American society. Many pro-marijuana advocates hoped that Barrack Obama, who admits to smoking the drug in his younger years, would help push for marijuana reform. However, marijuana arrests have continued to rise with more than 850,000 in 2009 and in 2010. This has dismantled hopes that drug-policy will change in the near future. When questioned on the subject, Barrack Obama responded:


"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana — and the reason is, because it's against federal law." (Chicago Tribune - Obama's pot reform goes up in smoke)

So for now, marijuana reform remains stagnant. However, there have been no prosecutions of individuals who obtain a license and use the drug for medicinal purposes. Until federal law is overturned, a nationwide welcoming of the drug will never be a reality.


Interest Groups:
http://norml.org/marijuana
News Articles:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0530-page-20120530,0,5777378.column
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/the-great-marijuana-debat_n_1397250.html
Statistics:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/february_2009/40_say_marijuana_should_be_legalized
Sources:
http://www.mjlegal.org/essayspeech.html
http://www.narconon.org/drug-information/marijuana-history.html
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/

PAC's

In the above cartoon, the influence of money within the government is illustrated clearly. Specifically pointing out the power of lobbyists, the lack of ethics created by the influence of money, and the different sectors swayed by the presence of money the cartoon aims at satirizing the unfortunate truth that politics revolves around the circulation of money.

The power of lobbyists is perhaps the most obvious argument made by the cartoon. The lobbyists are the "shoppers", and the store or "our country" is essentially catering to their needs. This argument is made clear in the speech bubble that is interjected. The "Blue Light Special!..." illustrates clearly that lobbyists look for senators who have control of an area of the government they wish to influence. In this case, it's "The Banking Committee" Senators who are targeted. Also, the way the lobbyists move through the store with ease, buying what they want with no interference, is commentating on the fact that lobbyists truly do what they wish. They have no barriers, their work is as easy as shopping at the super-market.
The cartoon also commentates on the lack of ethics that's created by the ever present influence of money. The speech bubble interjecting "Ethics? Maybe in the frozen section" is a testament to this. This comment pokes fun at the fact that ethics are as apparent in Washington as a food item that a grocery store isn't likely to carry; or a food item that has been essentially frozen. As senators are continually swayed by the money offered by interest-groups, the ethics in Washington continues to deteriorate.
Finally, this cartoon also does a great job laying out the multiple sectors that these interest-groups target. This is made clear in the labeling of the aisles. The aisle labeled "Money" is probably a popular aisle, as the cartoon displays a lobbyist walking down it. This is because the aisle is marked by the presence of "527's" or in other words, Super Pac's. Super Pac's now provide a legal means of unlimited money to become filtered into candidates and their elections. Lobbyists can now help sway elections by giving copious amounts of money into a Super Pac that appeals to a candidate of their interest.

Media

The danger of a society reliant on internet for their news is that they are at the liberty of the internet's source. Sure, Twitter is fantastic. As news occurs, it quickly becomes a trending topic. But is it enough to prompt Tweeters to research beyond the tweets of friends and celebrities? More often than not no. Their understanding of an event may be solely the opinion and "facts", correct or not, of those they follow on Twitter. Similarly, even reading news articles online takes interaction out of news delivery. You can read the opinions of liberal and conservative views on the Trayvon Martin case, but will you ever see the family's reaction to the event? Perhaps, if people are interested enough, they will do some digging on an issue and find a clip. But that is work. And, when it comes to news, people often look for a delivery that is convenient. This is why television news has always been so popular.You "see" news rather than reading it. Also, those in search of internet news are often focused only on news that "entertains". Many Americans don't go beyond the top 5 Yahoo or AOL stories of the day. As a result, Americans find interest in "Hunger Games star gets his nose fixed" and "5 Habits of Wealthy Americans" (Yahoo news 5/16/12). Is this real news? Or simply "entertainment" stories that prompt readers to stay on a site. Again, this is the trouble with internet "news". As magazines and newspapers decline in popularity, internet news is taking their place. Because of this, it is increasingly important that internet users search out news from reliable sources and look for current events of importance.

Running with Romney

The most important traits Romney should look for in a running mate include someone with a strong conservative background, not too controversial,  and ultimately someone who carries enough experience to take on the role as vice president.
First, I believe it's important that Romney pick a running mate who stands firm in right-wing values. This is because Romney himself is not a strong conservative. He is classified as a moderate Republican. Romney has switched his views on abortion and gay rights illustrating clearly he is not necessarily grounded in political stance. A conservative running mate would help Romney gain support from more conservative members of his party by balancing out his running platform.
Also, Romney should not pick a running mate who is too controversial. As illustrated in the last election, the McCain-Palin Republican team had Sarah Palin's energy backfire on the campaign. Now, I think Romney should work on picking a candidate who is safe. After all, Romney's Mormon religion is already something new he would bring to the oval-office if elected.
Finally, it's important that Romney pick a candidate who has the political experience to effectively act as president. Again, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin was criticized because she was a very young politician who lacked the experience of older politicans. Romeny need not stir the water by opting for a young running-mate. He needs to pick an individual with an understanding of our country's needs and that will ultimately illustrate to America a strong Republican team capable of taking on the White House.
The best potential running mate for Romney is found in the credentials of Rob Portman and Jeb Bush. He should steer clear of politicians like governor Nikki Haley in order to stay away from unnecessary controversy.
Rob Portman is "safe pick". He's a strong conservative and also carries a great deal of experience necessary for the job as VP. He's been the director of the Office of Management and Budget, a U.S. trade representative, and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Currently the Senator of Ohio, Portman has a great deal of respect which makes him a top pick to run alongside Romney. Also, Jeb Bush is another candidate who is not controversial and a conservative in popular standing. As a past governor of Florida, Bush is qualified to hold the position. He also stems from a line of political leaders; his father George H. W. Bush and brother George W. Bush were presidents. What Romney should avoid is picking a running mate like governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley. She's a woman and conservative. But Romney may receive criticism for picking a younger woman with less credentials than other possible running mates. Also, she has low approval ratings in her own state. That alone shows she has the potential to hinder Romney's campaign.

More Information on ROB PORTMAN: http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/

More Information of JEB BUSH: http://www.jeb.org/
                                                   http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/jeb-bush-says-hed-consider-vp- slot-dpgapx-20120420-kh_19320691

Electoral College

The Electoral College is in need of a new system. Currently, it doesn't provide a fair representation of the American people. Because of this, I believe the system should award electoral votes to the candidates as they win districts. For example, Wisconsin has 10 electoral votes. If a district votes Republican, the Republican candidate should be granted that vote. With the current system, if the state has a greater percentage of Democratic votes ALL the votes go to the candidate. But is this truly an accurate view? Does it take into account districts that vote Republican?

Revising the system would ultimately fix the problems with the Electoral College. By eliminating the states that have more sway in elections, providing a more accurate view of the American people, and updating an outdated system the way we elect our president will be transformed for the better.

Awarding candidates individual district's votes eliminates the unfortunate truth that certain states have more say in elections than others. In fact, because a candidate needs only to win 270 votes, an election could be won with as few as 11 states. This process means candidates neglect entire states altogether. They do a great deal of campaigning in Ohio and Florida and may never visit Wyoming. Is this fair? Should a person's vote in Ohio count more than someone from Wyoming? The simple answer is no.

This leads into the next point, that a redesigned system provides a more accurate view of the American people. Right now, it seems that states like California, Texas and Florida determine the election. Forget about the Midwest, the East and West coast determines our elections. This needs to be changed. If districts are awarded votes, a California vote is worth the same as a cattle rancher in Wyoming. That is true democracy and this is what our American voting system should reflect.

Finally, this revision to the college is an update over 200 years in the making. Our current system was created by our founding fathers in a time where our country only held 13 states. They also considered the common-man uneducated, and unable to cast a vote with meaning. That is the mentality they held when drafting the college. But what about now? In an age where we have information at our fingertips, voters today are more educated than ever before. We need only to Google Search a candidates name and their biography and views are instantly accessible. 

So what does this mean? This means our country is ready for a change. It is ready to stand up and defend our system democracy by enacting a voting process reflective of this fact.

Elections

When it comes to electing the President of the United States, the system could be improved by eliminating government contributions to campaigns, removing the electoral college, and shortening the primary season.

During elections, I believe candidates should be funded by external contributors and their own fundraising rather than by the federal government. This way, candidates can use as much money as they want. Money allows them to reach a greater extent of the American people. This is the problem with government funding; it sets limits to campaigning. The other problem is that this money comes from tax payers and a government already carrying a massive debt.

Also, the election system could be improved by removing the electoral college. The president should be elected by popular vote. With the electoral college, this is not always the case. For example, the Al Gore and George Bush election of 2000 is a testament to this. Al Gore won a greater percentage of votes than Bush (50,999,897 to 50,456,002). However, the system of the electoral college placed Bush into office which illustrates how the system can fail to reflect the views of the American people.

Finally, shortening the primary season may lead to more effect campaigns. For example, in the most recent Republican primary, there were multiple candidates that campaigned through the long haul. Narrowing down the nominee, Mitt Romney, has lasted almost until the Republican Convention. Because of this, the Republican party has not been unified or focused on a clear message. By shortening the primary season and choosing a nominee earlier, political parties can better focus their campaign and clearly project a message to the American people so that they are educated in casting their vote in November.