Jordan Sylar Article Summaries

Stalemate

Because of the way the legislative system is set up with a bicameral legislature and and separation of power, gridlock is inevitable and has existed from the beginning. Differing policy views, even within the same party, contribute to gridlock and result in delays and conflict when it comes to policy making. Gridlock is viewed differently depending on the person. Despite the way that it frustrates many Americans, Jefferson thought that a small amount of delay was helpful. Gridlock can be a tool that is used by legislators to strategically pass or stall a bill. Ultimately, gridlock is the result of the way the legislature is set up, as well as the differing agendas among the elected officials in the legislative branch.

The Imperial Presidency

A large amount of presidents have attempted broaden the President’s powers outside of those listed in The Constitution. Many have compared this extension of power to that of a king’s, hence the title “Imperial Presidency.” The main area that this shift of power can be seen in is the President’s wartime powers or powers in times of crisis. The justification used is that the president needs the ability to act quickly, and the results are things like FDR’s New Deal or The Cuban Missile Crisis under Kennedy. An example of a president who took his power too far and received backlash is Nixon during the Watergate scandal. As presidents continue to create their own power, corruption increases and they support the title of “Imperial” that Schlesinger has given them.

Pursuit of Justice

The President is explicitly given the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate’s job is to confirm the nomination. These are both significant powers and they require that the President the Senate can agree and work together. The President usually nominates someone with similar views and party affiliations, as they are supposed to be an extension of himself in the Supreme Court. The President also, however, has to consider party politics when making a supreme court nomination. Finding a candidate that fits all of the criteria is a difficult job, and there have been at least ten different changes in the selection process since the new deal that have made the process more complicated. The Justice Department has also taken a more significant role in the government as time has passed, resulting in increasing importance of Supreme Court nominations. The number of federal courts has grown, and as a result so has the number of appointments the president is required to make. The White House staff grew as well, resulting in more influences and factors for the president to consider when making decisions. Presidents also rely more heavily on their counsel to help them make decisions. Because a divided party system is now commonplace, a moderate candidate for the Court must be selected to make it through if the president and the Senate have conflicting parties. Nominations have also become much more public, and have to deal with more scrutiny from the media and the public. The American Bar Association has also received the power to rate candidates and have a say in who is chosen. Interest groups conduct research and attempt to influence the appointment through their own means. Technology has also increased and allows more information to be gathered and seen about the candidates when making decisions. The Supreme Court has grown in influence and power, and with it the nomination process has become more important and complicated. 

[Put this on my lowest quiz, please :)]

Article Summary Extra Credit-Kinsey Anderson

Stalemate by Sarah Binder

Throughout Stalemate, Binder discusses several reasons that cause a gridlock in Congress. Although gridlock is a newer term, it is not a new concept. Alexander Hamilton mentioned how he was annoyed by the stalemate that arose in the Continental Congress. Binder first writes how the divided government results in conflict, which leads to a deadlock. Since the frequency of gridlock is not consistent, Binder says it is important to learn what causes it. Even if Congress is controlled by the same party, compromise for breaking a gridlock is not insured. There is a structural and pluralist component of the American political system. According to the analysis of David Mayhew, the pluralist component is better because of the distributions of policy views and the timing of party politics. Party effects influence Congress’ decision making. While elections divide control, they also decide the different beliefs within each party. In order for the government to be receptive, it is important to have united political parties that could give decisive choices to the electorate. Over the years, the party polarization has increased, which further bolsters deadlock. If the United States had a greater political center and a less polarized Congress, then it is more likely to have policy compromise. Binder believes that bicameralism is the most significant reason causing gridlock in American politics. When there are structural differences in the House and the Senate, bicameral differences occur. In Congress, there is not much incentive for compromise, so many legislators do not feel it is urgent to reach an agreement. Since people have different hopes for the outcome of a gridlock, it is difficult to fix it.

The Imperial Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger

Schlesinger believes the imperial Presidency was significant in the creation foreign policy, and he further explains the war-making power of the president. The imperial Presidency became part of the American society because of the deterioration of the traditional party system. Over the years, the parties have declined, which can most significantly be attributed to the improvement of technology. Because the parties have diminished, there has been a larger focus on the President. Economic changes have also impacted the powers of the President. Schlesinger thinks Roosevelt and Kennedy both used their imperial powers wisely, but he does not believe the same for Richard Nixon. He believes Nixon is the ultimate imperial president. During the New American Revolution, the power was focused towards the  president, not the people. Nixon believed that, as the president, he could place himself above the Constitution, which is evident through the Watergate Scandal. Secrecy favored the government in three ways: the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie. After the secrecy, Schlesinger further writes about questioning the power of the president during Nixon’s administration. Because of the Watergate scandal, the imperial Presidency was stopped until the presidency of George Bush. President Bush’s response to the 9/11 attacks and foreign policy revived the imperial Presidency.

Pursuit of Justices by David Yalof

David Yalof discusses how the president has to select nominees to the Supreme Court, which is one of his most important duties. In order for the nominee to become a justice of the Supreme Court, the Senate must approve of the candidate. The president chooses a person who has similar doctrine to himself, which creates a continuing legacy for the president after his term ends. The New Deal brought about significant change in American politics. Yalof describes ten advancements that changed the manner in which the justices are selected. Substantial growth occurred in the Justice Department, the White House, and the federal courts, which allowed the attorney general to give more guidance while selecting a Supreme Court nominee. This expansion has also provided the president with more appointment opportunities. Since senatorial courtesy does not apply in the broadening D.C. Circuit, the president is able to select people who have similar ideology in the federal judicial system. In addition to expansion, technology has also been an important part of the changing selection process. With the media’s greater focus on the process, the public is more informed on the nominee. Overall, the Supreme Court has become more involved in American politics. The Court places itself in the middle of significant political controversies, and it is focused on a rights-based agenda.


Please add 5 points to my test

KP: Article Summary Extra Credit

Stalemate

         Gridlock existed long before the 1980 election, as Hamilton saw it in place nearly 200 years prior. Many critics claim that a divided government brings “conflict, delay, and indecision” which leads to “deadlock, inadequate and ineffective policies, or no policies at all” because long periods of a successful, lawmaking government are rare in American history. However, gridlock in government has mixed reviews, as Jefferson’s philosophy might welcome a small amount of gridlock and Bob Dole states that we should even hope for it. Ultimately, a government controlled by one political party still cannot ensure that there will be no gridlock or stalemate in the legislative process, Party polarization, the separation of powers, and a bicameral legislature also contribute to this effect. Differing policy views and political agendas held by competing politicians fuel the modern political monster known as a Stalemate.

The Imperial Presidency

       Presidential primacy is now presidential supremacy, and constitutional presidency has turned into an imperial presidency, and if we’re not careful, could become a revolutionary presidency. There has been a shift in Constitutional balance concerning presidential power. The war-making power in particularly has essentially allowed the President to become a creator of foreign policy, as they are know the master of peace and war. In certain cases, such as FDR and his New Deal, that an influx of domestic power doesn’t always result in an influx of foreign power. A development of this imperial presidency was a decay in the structure of the traditional party system, because as the parties faded away, the presidency stood out. Kennedy’s actions concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis set a precedent for presidents in the future, despite the fact that he had dealt with an obscure and unique situation. His action was an exception that was taken as a rule. As Presidents reconstruct the office to meet their own needs, they continue to support Schlesinger’s ideas that it is now an imperial position.

Pursuit of Justices

Supreme Court Justice nomination is one of the president’s most significant duties, and conflict and factionalism has made this power much more complicated. President’s typically nominate those who have similar judicials views as their own, which in turn allows them to attempt to gain more control over the Supreme Court. However, because of the competing ideas even within the executive administration, finding the candidate that accurately reflects a president’s views may seem harder than it sounds. There are at least 10 developments post New Deal era that have changed the selection process for justices.

The Justice Department grew dramatically which delegated more power to agencies and allows the attorney general to have a louder voice in the selection process.

The White House staff also grew following FDR’s administration, and now many modern presidents rely heavily on their Counsel Office to assist them in researching new nominees.

The federal court system has also grown, which has allowed senatorial courtesy to be a dominant factor in lower court selections, and these courts act as a trial run for those who could one day be promoted to the Supreme Court.

A divided party government is now routine and moderate candidates must be selected in order to be confirmed by a Senate of a different party.

The confirmation process is now available to the media and the public can now be up to date on each and every step in the nomination and confirmation process, as the nominee must now also please the media.

The American Bar Association’ Special Committee on the Judiciary has reviewed all candidates since its creation and a president must now factor in the ABA’s approval ratings into the candidate’s nomination.

Interest groups now conduct their own research and have extended their influence on early stage nominations.

The increased media attention has forced president’s to also fight the daily coverage of the process, in which a long delay in the process could be blown out of proportion into a major problem.

Legal research technology has allowed all participants of the process to access software programs such as LEXIS/NEXIS and WESTLAW which quickly gather all past opinions, commentary, rulings, and so on.

Lastly, because the Supreme Court has become an increasingly more visible power in the government, the office is now held as one with higher stakes, influence, and power.

[put on the test please]

Unit 4 Extra Credit - JD Sanderson

Stalemate

The concept of gridlock has existed since the country began and is a result of the legislative system. Gridlock cannot be avoided just by having the same party in every seat. Inter-party politics and differing views would still contribute to the phenomenon. The polarization of the parties have also contributed to gridlock by presenting less chance for compromise within legislative debilitations. The larger the moderate section is, the more policy gets considered and moved through. Gridlock occurs between the two houses as well. The House and Senate will not always have the same agenda and, as bills need to pass both houses before being signed, many times bills will be kept in limbo while neither side can agree on compromises. Gridlock can also be used as a tool for some legislators when a bill passing or not passing could present a win either way. Overall, gridlock is mostly a result of politicians with different agendas being elected and having to work together, with little able to be done within the existing system to fix the problem.

The Imperial Presidency

Several presidents, such as Nixon, have tried to extend the Constitutional powers of the Oval Office into areas where they have no real business being. The main regent credited for this change is the “need” for more power and quicker possibility of action during times of foreign crisis. The roots of the problem are able to be seen with FDR’s New Deal and the economic powers it granted the government, setting a precedent of available powers in times of crisis. The decline of party importance is also stated as having made the office appear more as a beacon to the country as it was one place where the structure of the past was still seen. One example of the massive amount of power held by the president being a good thing is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy has the power to make a decision and carry it out quickly enough to diffuse the situation. However, this power also allowed presidents to shape the administration to how they envisioned it. Nison used it to install a large system of secrecy into the White House and keep major decisions away from the public eye, as well as from many people in the government. Eventually, Nixon stretched his powers too far, resulting in the Watergate scandal causing his resignation. There is also a trend of a 50 year cycle of corruption and public outcry seen in the presidency.

Pursuit of Justice

The president has a significant power in the ability to nominate the Supreme Court justices, provided the Senate confirms them. Many appointees are chosen according to similar political interests with the president, but he also has to consider party politics and what the appointment will do to his own political career. The New Deal and other political events caused a change in the Court’s role and structure. The growth of the Justice Department caused it to have more power within the government, with higher offices having more input into the nominations. The White House staff also grew, putting more people, and thus influences, closer to the president and giving the White House more power in the grand scheme. The president also has more power over appointments to federal courts, as the number of them has grown radically as Congress has had to deal with more issues. The president is able to have more judges with views, as well as being able to “screen” potential justices with lower appointments. The president has to consider the public opinion though. The nomination process has become much more public, with less chance for deliberation to take place and more attention on who the president is going to choose. The American Bar Association has also gained a more prominent role in the nomination process, although it does depend on who is in power at the time. They can “rate” a nominee, which affects the decision to approve the nominee, as well as how the public will perceive the nominee. As always, interest groups also have a large role in the process. They have the resources to run campaigns for or against nominees, as well as having the control of legislators who rely on them for reelection. The media plays a part by digging into nominees’ pasts and shaping public opinion. It has also become easier to find nominees’ past legal actions, opinions, and decisions through software developed for the purpose. The Court has steadily grown in influence due to its reputation of mainly dealing with rights and controversial issues. This causes nominations to garner large amounts of attention due to the potential power the justice could have.

Put this on my test, please.

Articles Summarization - Unit 4 Extra Credit

Give a summary of the three articles given for Unit 4:

• Stalemate
• The Imperial Presidency
• Pursuit of Justices

Post as separate blog, title with your name, and be sure to include where you would like the extra credit to be applied!

** Both the Silverdalia extra credit and this extra credit are due after the next test. **

Alexander Ioannidis Political Ideology

I lean more economically liberal and socially libertarian. I do agree with my results. I believe that government needs to do more to help lower class people make it in society. I think it is unacceptable for people to be starving or lacking medical care in the United States. My socially libertarian ways are also accurate because I believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. This includes being pro-life. I am all for a woman being able to make her own health decisions, but not at the expense of an innocent child's life. With gay marriage, I do not think gay marriage is ok, but from a constitutional perspective, people should have the right to marry who they want and it should not be regulated by the government. I would describe myself as a moderate who leans toward the left. I am not extreme in my beliefs, but I do believe everyone deserves a fair shot and a level playing field. My only super conservative stance is on the issue of abortion. I am 100% pro-life even in cases of incest and rape. The only time I would be pro-choice is if the mother of the child was dying. On this note, I proudly endorse Bernie Sanders for President in 2016!

Please add my extra credit to the unit 2/3 test.

Kinsey Anderson-Political Ideology Extra Credit

According to the political compass quiz, my economic and social beliefs are left authoritarian. The quiz shows that my economic beliefs are approximately in the middle between conservative and liberal. I was surprised by this because my economic beliefs tend to be much more conservative. I think equal opportunity and equality are important, but I feel that extreme liberals go too far with equality. I disagree with the fact that people who are able to work, but choose not to are given money by the government. I also do not support the liberal idea of taxing the rich more in order to bring everyone more towards the center economically. I am not surprised that my social beliefs appear to be more conservative. I believe my conservative social ideology is rooted in my religious beliefs. I thought that economically and socially my beliefs would greatly be skewed towards the conservative side. Although my social beliefs were more on the conservative side than my economic beliefs, I find it interesting that both are not significantly conservative. Overall, I consider myself to have conservative economic and social beliefs.

Please add extra credit to Unit 2/3 Test

Jordan Sylar- Political Idealogy

My political compass results said that I was a tad socially and economically liberal, but more economically liberal than socially. I am not sure if I agree with this or not. I don’t know enough about economics to know exactly where I stand on some economic issues, however, I usually define myself as more of an economic conservative. I do agree with my social results though. While I do believe in adhering to traditional Christian values personally, I do not see it as the U.S. government’s job to enforce these values completely. I think a certain amount of social freedom should be allowed for the people, as long as it isn’t dangerous to others, like abortion. I don’t however, support change just for the sake of change. I do think that completely abandoning the ways of the past can be harmful. All together though, I think that I need to become more informed before I label myself politically. It’s dangerous when people label themselves ignorantly.

KP: Political Compass Extra Credit

According to my political compass, I am about as dead in the middle as you can get. I am right in the middle of everything, not socially or economically more liberal or conservative. To be honest, I was a little surprised that I didn’t have more conservative results. I would definitely say that I’m more conservative politically, especially for my age group, but I guess I just didn’t expect to be in the dead center. In comparison to a few of my classmates, my results are still the more conservative results I expected. I don’t think these results were completely accurate, as some of the questions were very unclear, or I didn’t have an idea about the topic in general. There were lots that I hadn’t stopped to think about, so the response was my gut instinct, that oftentimes I didn’t have time to think through all the repercussions that would follow my answer. Because there was no neutral or I don’t know option, some of the ones I just had to guess on probably left a small margin of error in my results. I do think this is a good indicator that I’m not super left or right winged, however I think my results could have been more accurate, and if that were the case I think I would have been slightly more to the right. Economic issues aren’t on the forefront of my mind and I don’t know a ton about the economy except what I catch on the news or hearing my parents discuss. As for social standings, I think it’s a hard place to be in. I am a Christian and I will always vote for what I believe is right according to the Bible, however, there is a separation of church and state that make it difficult for some people to keep their political ideas in line with their beliefs. Ultimately, I would say I’m a more moderate conservative when it comes to political issues.

[extra credit for unit 2/3 test]

JD Sanderson - Political Ideology Unit 2/3 Extra Credit

From this, it says that I am economically and socially left leaning, but fairly towards the moderate side. I am barely more socially liberal than I am economically. I think the results are a little skewed. While I agree with the social views, I think that the questions about economics didn't represent all my views well enough. Most of them were about big corporations and how they treat people, with barely any about how employees should behave or what rights they should have. I think I am more economically conservative than this shows me to be. I do agree with how socially liberal I am though, of course everyone would as well. I would describe myself as a libertarian, not democrat as some people think for some reason. I do think people should be free to do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone physically or financially; I don't think the government should be able to legislate morality. Economically, I think we should prevent any major economical changes from happening until we understand fully why our economy is doing so poorly. I believe that liberals want everything to change too fast without thinking about it first. It's almost like they think it's a good idea just because it's a change. In general, I would have to say that I lean liberal on most issues despite that fact.

Put this on the test, please.

Political Ideology - Unit 2/3 Extra Credit

Let's talk ideology. Upload your results from the political compass quiz we took in class and analyze them for me. Do you agree with your results? How would you describe yourself politically? Post your own blog, title with your name and name of assignment. Then don't forget to include which assignment I should apply your extra credit from Unit 2 or 3. Let's have this complete by next Wednesday 2/24.

State of the Union Address - Jordan Sylar

     It seems that the time many republicans have been waiting eight years for is finally approaching: Obama is getting ready to leave the presidential office. He gave his final State of the Union address on January 12, with many Americans watching, cheering, and critiquing his words. I was one of those Americans, and I found myself to be impressed, surprised, confused, and saddened by what I observed.

    One of the first things that Obama says is that he will not spend as much time discussing proposals, and he goes straight into a very idealistic rant about the future of our country. All of his ideas were good, sure, but he seemed to be making sugarcoated, unkeepable promises to the American people. I mostly found myself wondering if he believed them, and if not, if he was only saying nice things to maintain the morale of the public. Obama’s speaking skills did impress me, as always, and I can understand how he sways people to support him.

    There were four main points, or rather rhetorical questions, used throughout the speech:  “how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?”, “how do we make technology work for us, and not against us, especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?”, “how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?”, and “how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?”. These are four excellent questions that the American people have not only been asking for a long, long time, but also ones that we desperately need answers to.

    As for his first question about giving everyone fair opportunities, he answers by discussing providing free college and pursuing the Affordable Care Act. Which both seem like good ideas at first glance, but I worry about the consequences of implementation. I do agree that education and healthcare should be accessible to all, I just do not think we have found the best way to provide it without leaning toward socialism.  If this is an issue of equality v equity, I definitely believe that these types of policies lend themselves to equity, and worry about their result on our democracy.

    Technology was addressed mainly in the form of finding new energy sources. He states that there is progress being made in the areas of wind and solar energy, and that this progress will both help the environment and save Americans money. The next point, keeping America safe, I feel was brushed under the rug. Obama seems to have a very high confidence in America’s safety, and he seems to discount threats like Isis too easily. I also feel as though America is taking on too much at once as far as foreign affairs go, and we are quickly becoming the world’s policeman. My desire would be for our safety goals to become simpler and more concentrated.

    As for the last question asked, I would love to know the answer. Obama called for radical change in politics, which I agree with. He said, “The future we want, all of us want — opportunity and security for our families, a rising standard of living, a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids — all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates. It will only happen if we fix our politics.” He goes on to present many more ideas about changing politics and the divisiveness of parties, which I really enjoyed hearing. It was mostly pathos, but I liked the idea presented of using the tools put in place by the framers the right way, and arguing constructively.

His approach to finding solutions can be summed up in the Lincoln quote he used, “we thought anew and acted anew.” The solutions proposed are very much new and forward-thinking, with the end goal of positive change in the areas of technology, economics, medicine, education, etc. Although I didn’t agree with a lot of what was said, I enjoyed this speech. I believe that the first step to improving our country is having leaders that care about the people, and I really hope that Obama cares as much as he claims. He ends by saying “God Bless America”, which is honestly all I can pray after listening to this speech. 

[Please add the points to my FRQ quiz grade]

Kinsey Anderson-State of the Union

The State of the Union Speech occurred on January 12, 2016, and it was President Obama’s final State of the Union Speech. Towards the beginning of the speech, President Obama had a few proposals such as raising the minimum wage, fixing the immigration system, equal pay for work, protecting children from gun violence, and paid leave. After the proposals, President Obama spoke about his vision for the future, which was a consistent theme throughout the speech. Since Obama has less than a year in office, he felt it was important to focus on the future rather than many proposals. Throughout our history, Americans have dealt with significant changes like wars and depressions, and we have not feared the future. President Obama said our optimistic spirit and our choices have helped make economic progress during his presidency that will continue in years to come.

The future was an important element to President Obama’s speech. There were four essential questions that encompassed the remainder of his speech. Obama asked, “First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy? Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us -- especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change? Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman? And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?” 

After stating the four questions, President Obama addressed each question. Initially, Obama stated that the United States currently has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. Obama also said the unemployment rate has been cut in half since the 1990s because approximately 14 million jobs have been created. Then, Obama shifted to technology and discussed how it has replaced assembly line jobs or jobs that can be automated. He mentioned his goals to make college more affordable by reducing student loans, and giving students two years of free community college. Although Obama felt education was significant, he also emphasized the importance of health and retirement. Obama stressed the importance of Social Security and Medicare and how we should work to strengthen them. 

As Americans, Obama said, “That spirit of discovery is in our DNA.” He placed Vice President Biden in charge of leading the medical research for finding a cure for cancer. Since we are dedicated to medical research, Obama wants us to advance clean energy sources. Obama provided facts about how clean energy sources has affected us positively. Next discussion point was the security of America and how it is the strongest nation in the world. Since ISIS is currently a common topic, Obama said ISIS is using propaganda to try and place fear in Americans. Obama’s first priority is to protect Americans by sending forces to Iraq and Syria to reclaim territory. While Obama talked about global matters, he mentioned the significance of improving diplomatic relations.

Our Constitution begins with “We the People”, and Obama said this means all Americans, which led him to his fourth point. We must work together towards the future that we want. After addressing his last point, Obama explained how he wanted to make the political process easier. Obama ended with saying it would be easier to not make changes, but we cannot stop or we will abandon our future.

As I reflect upon President Obama’s speech, I agree with some of his points, but disagree with others. Though the economy has improved, the national debt is rising rapidly. During Obama’s presidency, we reached the peak of our most recent recession with very high unemployment rates. Our economy is getting stronger, but we must recognize the level of debt our country is facing. I also think it would be helpful to make community college free for two years. I believe medical research is very important, and we should strive to find cures for many diseases. President Obama noted that the political process must be easier. One of the areas needing improvement is the voting procedure. It is imperative to make the voting process more stringent. Voters should be informed and understand who they are voting for because we are selecting a person who leads and shapes our country. In order to fix the future, I believe there are changes we must make in the present. 

JD Sanderson - State of the Union

The main points of Obama’s speech were listed in the beginning. The four big issues that he addressed were making sure that the emerging economy is fair for everyone, using developing technology in a way that benefits everyone and addresses long term issues, keeping America safe from threats military or otherwise without becoming the international police, and how to change politics to reflect what the country should be like. I think that Obama is addressing concerns that many Americans have had for a long while. I think that the theme of this address was making sure the future is someplace that you would want to be in. He said that there needs to be change in the economy to account for the changes we see today. There is new technology and policies that creates the opportunity for jobs and workers to be replaced through outsourcing or automation. There needs to be a change so that normal Americans are not left to fend for themselves while the money from replacements goes to the top. Along with technology, the future will need better education as well, which was addressed. Obama made a great point in that the schools should start teaching kids more computer and math skills. Computers are becoming more and more widespread and integrated into commerce and industry, so the new workforce will need to be trained on how to use them. Along with high school education, the issue of college education was addressed. Obama said that college should be more affordable and, at least for community colleges, free for the first two years. This will let kids explore what they want to do without being too locked into one path because it would be too expensive to switch degree paths. This is important because more jobs are requiring a degree, so a college education is becoming more important as factory jobs are being replaced with machines. These machines will need engineers, programmers, and technicians to keep them working, which will all most likely require a college education. This reflects the theme of needing to prepare for the future, in that education will need to change drastically from what it is now to prepare students for the future. Obama addressed another important topic that also has a big impact on the future: new energy sources. Obama stated that because of the growing industry of wind and solar energy, Americans are saving more money while also using a much cleaner energy source. He also said something I really appreciated, realizing that this change won't be overnight and that future generations will have to work for it.

Overall, I liked this speech much more than I thought I would. I didn’t expect to agree with so many things that Obama says, but his politics are surprisingly sane compared to what I’ve heard said about him. I think the part I agreed with the most were his points on education and technology. Colleges are expensive and put strain on graduates. It may be too ideological of me, but I think in a country that’s going to be changing in almost every way, economic strain shouldn’t come with you right into the job market. The only thing I wasn’t completely sold on was our involvement in world politics. I think the country is too focused on maintaining peace that it’s hurting us and other countries. We should be able to focus on our economy and well-being, especially if it will change as much as Obama says it will, which we can’t do very well if we’re worrying about who’s blowing up who across the world. He addressed this, but I think it should go a little further: America makes other countries weaker when we intervene so often. I agree with him not wanting our country to become the police again, but I think except for trade, science, and directly defending our security, we shouldn’t be involved with other countries because they will and have started to rely on us to step into most conflicts. I don’t understand why we can’t let the countries solve their differences themselves, otherwise they’ll be arguing over a river for 60 years until another terrorist group shows up. (For the Test)

KP: SOTU Extra Credit

On January 12, at roughly 9:10 pm, President Obama gave his last State of the Union address. My initial impressions, just based purely on rhetoric, were more pleasant than I expected. Living in the midst of the conservative South, it almost seems second nature to dislike any and all things put forth by the Obama administration. This speech was definitely viewed in a skewed light, as I found myself being rather critical and looking for disagreements, but perhaps that is because nothing is unbiased anymore. Regardless, here are my thoughts.

Obama began with stating that this speech won’t be filled with a traditional list of proposals for the year ahead, however, the following paragraph read a bit like someone running for class president and wanting to initiate no homework, recess all day, and dessert for every meal. Pushing that aside, he gets to his theme for his final address: the future. We live in a time of change and because we adapted to it, we are stronger than before. According to Obama, our recovery from the economic crisis, reform of the health care system, and resulted in the Supreme Court ruling this summer was all product of our work ethic, diversity, discovery, and optimism. With this in mind, we must focus on the future that has been so kindly separated into four points for us.

First is the question of “how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?” Immediately my mind was drawn to an economics discussion we once had, equality or equity. Equal treatment or equal opportunity? I believe this portion of his speech, if nothing else, highlighted the differences between the two. While in good efforts, this first point seemed to be largely about equalizing the treatment of individuals, the education system, healthcare benefits, etc. I guess my question is what more does Obama want? With ObamaCare  and NCLB, working through Common Core in place, what other equalizing treatment does he propose the country offer?

The next question is “how do we reignite the spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?” My first impression was something along the lines of, what in the world is this man talking about and is this a tangible point? Moving forward, Obama declared action to continue the American legacy of discovery paired with advancements in technology, and appointed Joe Biden head of something to do with medical research and curing cancer. Global warming, gas prices, and solar panels all fell into this topic as well, but to be honest I didn’t quite follow it all. I know he is calling for a reawakening and continued excellence in these fields, but other than that I’m a bit lost.

What I did understand was the mention of America being the greatest country on earth, and the mention of ISIL in the third topic of the speech. I find it interesting that we are the most powerful nation, yet we have not taken extreme measures to fight this group of heartless terrorists, but that’s just my two cents. I understand that for the past year we have joined with nearly 60 other countries to cut off funding, fights, and plots, but what I don’t understand is the apparent contentment with these plans as attacks continued to happen.  I agree with the President and that we should be serious about winning this war, but I understand that it is a delicate matter. I also got the sense of America as having their hands in a little bit of everything, from conflict in Syria and drawing weapons out of Iran, to fighting Ebola in West Africa and resuming relations with Cuba. We are inching towards that policeman mentality, and I pray that we approach that line with much thought and consideration of the consequences.

Lastly, Obama spoke about politics. Radical change in politics is what he wants. He made a mention of respecting every faith, which I thought to be a bit of a rose colored glasses view of American culture. Regardless, this is where I saw the strongest tie to his theme of the future. He pleads for a better political system for the future, one with vague ideas of how to implement. I didn’t get the practical ways this would happen, but maybe that’s perhaps I don’t quite grasp the political realm yet. I did see mention of federalism and the conflict the framers knew it would entail, and I was relieved to see a topic I nearly completely understood.

Overall, I clearly saw Obama’s theme of the future; however, I seemed to get lost in the four points just a bit. While many fact checkers go to show that his points were embellished and dressed up, I am still in awe of the power of words. This speech was uber American, uber empowering, and I can see why some people so easily like him. He tied it up with a pretty bow full of pathos, but effective nonetheless. While I wish I understood more, and desperately want better facts, I was ultimately shocked to see that after the year we had as a country, the optimism rang loud that the State of our Union is still strong.

[extra credit for the Unit 1 test]

State of the Union - Unit 1 Extra Credit

State of the Union - Extra Credit Assignment

DUE: Day after Test

• Watch the State of the Union - either live on 1/12 or online afterward.
• Make notes on President Obama’s main points.
• Write a 2-3 page reflection (double space/12 point font/regular margins) addressing:
• What do you think were the main points of the speech?
• Was there a theme? What was it? Why?
• What was your reaction to the State of the Union? Do you have opinions about what the President would like or not like to do?
• Extra Credit will be added to Unit 1 Assignments - Quiz or Test (20 points on MC Quiz, 1 total point on FRQ Quiz, 5-10 points on a Test) - Please include which assignment you would like to add the extra credit.
• Title your Blog with your name and Assignment Name.