Moving to new site!

Effective immediately, this will be the blog's new home site:
http://mutanatia.wordpress.com

On Tyranny of the Minority

I'm going to introduce another, slightly different, concept. If you know me online and on Facebook, then you've heard me mention it before. The Concept we are going to discuss is "Tyranny of the Minority." For purposes of this article, we are dealing with legislators, and not ordinary citizens.

The Founding Fathers envisioned, and rightfully so in my opinion, "Tyranny of the majority." Where I think they missed the boat is that the political minority (Democrats, Republicans, what have you) can be just as bad.

For starters, a little background and for comparing and contrasting. We'll start with the majority. Tyranny of the majority deals with 3 main components:
1) Pushing through something that, though popular, could be harmful.
2) Suppression of the minority
3) Making sure only THEIR voices are loudest--which is slightly different than the component given immediately above.

In contrast, and also in similarity, tyranny of the minority involves these three points:

1) Stopping something that is essential, such as cabinet or court judges, indefinitely and without asking for something in exchange.
2) Suppression of the majority using various legislative "tricks," such as amendments to kill a bill, to ensure only their voice is being heard.
3) Making sure their voice is loudest.

Folks, this is exactly what gridlock looks like: when both tyrannies come together, there is no escape. Everything goes into a dark abyss from which there is no light. Something needs to give to send this nation in a direction, whatever it may be, in order to lead the average citizens. I'm tired of legislators throwing hissy fits.

Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress and the Presidency, you were elected to lead. Now do so.

On George Zimmerman and Trial by Media

American media has a nasty habit of trying to sway our opinion, rather than reporting the facts. One may think I am giving George Zimmerman a free ride in saying this. I am not. I believe that only George Zimmerman knows what happens that night, and that the prosecution either did not have the evidence to convict, or did a horrible job of prosecuting him. However, I think that approaching something from a predestined outcome does no one any favors. But let's put Zimmerman aside for a moment.  Within the past couple of years, there have been at least 2 other incidents where the media has swayed public opinion.

The first of these was Casey Anthony. Whether you agree with the outcome or not (I actually don't based on...guess what...media coverage. Do you see the problem here yet?), one can't deny that the media played a large part in swaying public opinion. Before the trial even started, various outlets (including CNN and Nancy Grace) had already pronounced her guilty.

Another, more egregious example (egregious because it has a measurable impact on the public) is the Supreme Court case debating the constitutionality of Obamacare. For Obamacare, again, nearly every media outlet was convinced that it would be struck down. When Chief Justice John Roberts read the decision, both Fox News and CNN (I don't know about MSNBC) even jumped the gun and said it was unconstitutional. But the fact of the matter was, Obamacare was ruled Constitutional and legal. But the larger picture is the impression it left on the public. It had such a lasting impact that some citizens don't even know that it is law.

What is my main point? The main point is that the media, it seems to me, has 3 main responsibilities when covering cases of any sort:

1) Report the facts <-- Done
2) Discuss tactics used by Lawyers <-- done
3) Let us determine our opinion <--FAILED

It is the third one that is routinely ignored by the media. Jurors are supposed to be unbiased. Why can't the media, which ultimately plays a larger role of society's jury, do the same? It is truly no wonder why verdicts surprise most people these days, sometimes dangerously so!

On the Never-Ending Cycles of Government

Harry Reid just announced that he would pursue the so-called "nuclear option" in the Senate, which will end all vote on and force a vote on Obama Cabinet nominees.

...but wait, what? Didn't this happen before with the GOP? Yes. In 2005, the GOP threatened to end filibusters via the very same method, using the "nuclear option." Back then, it was for judicial nominees by the Bush administration.

But the fact of the matter is, someone needs to break that cycle. Someone needs to break this never-ending cycle of what are, essentially, hissy-fits by politicians.

Who could lead that charge? Angus King, and independent, possibly could. Other possibilities are Chris Christie, who has crossed party lines numerous times to work with Obama; and even Andrew Cuomo, who got Republicans in the NY State legislature to *gasp* compromise gun control measures.

Whomever takes charge, something has to to give. And better sooner, rather than later!

On Eliot Spitzer and Second Chances

Well, the slimeball, Eliot Spitzer, is running for NY Comptroller. I urge all those who have a shred of dignity not to vote for him, should he survive his party's primary. Ignoring the sex scandal, candidate's personal lives are not relevant as to whether they can do their job or not.

As Fox News puts it--and I shudder that I actually agree with Fox News--Eliot Spitzer's "trial by media" of Wall Street and insurance companies cost my dad his job. Additionally, he has been sued for libel many times for his columns.

Eliot Spitzer is a slimeball and nothing more. He does NOT deserve a second chance, and I urge Democrats in NY to vote against him in the primary and, if needed, vote against him in the general election.

On the Morality of the Government and their Programs

Inspired by the recent NSA program revelations, I have decide to address not the scandal itself, but the overall question of morality. Morality is, of course, different from legality. A lie, in itself, can be considered immoral, but become illegal if that lie turns into, for example, fraud.

As far as I am concerned, the NSA program is legal. It was provided for in the Patriot Act. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that, when there is a "clear and present danger," (the patterns the NSA's "box" picks up in regards to who calls whom would reflect this) such programs would, I believe, fall into this category.

But the issue, to me, is not legality. The issue is morality. When governments, any government, any democracy, any dictatorship, etc. impinge legally or illegally on their citizens' rights, they have a moral obligation to reveal that impinging of rights to the public.

As far as what is to be revealed, a simple "hey, we are tracking what you do/say/worship" or any other right that is being impinged upon would be sufficient. This enables the country's citizens to know that they might have to be a little bit more careful, and there is not enough revealed about the program so as to expose it to loopholes and exceptions that criminals might otherwise exploit.

Thus, we, the citizens are better informed and there is a bit of transparency, but not so much so that criminals can exploited.

My thoughts on Syria

First of all, I apologize for lateness in entry. Let's restart!


Three crucial questions must be answered as we offer more aid to the Syrian rebels:

1) Who are the rebels? Are they Al Qaeda? Are they friendly to the US? Will they be like the Taliban and use the weapons we give them against us? The answer to this question must be, regardless, to put the US and its allies in a situation to limit the blowback that will eventually come to us in some form or another. Additionally, we must not allow the chemical weapons stockpile to get into the rebel's hands if we cannot trust them.

2) Will Bashar Assad leave? If Assad does not wish to leave, it could mean that we are dedicating ourselves to a potentially never-ending conflict unless we put boots on the ground.

3) Finally, what will be our ultimate level of involvement? Will we have boots on the ground? A no-fly zone? Will we send in a drone to kill Assad? Will we in/directly confront Russia and Iran? What is the end game. The list of questions related in this category goeso n and on.

One thing is for certain, Syria could be a deadly guessing game. One wrong move and you can pay forever.

A Socially Anxious Person Goes...Social!

A Socially Anxious Person Goes...Social! (Or, My Time at the Smithtown Library’s Historical Nonfiction Book Club)

I thought, this week, that we’d take a break from politics (as usual) on this blog and bring up a personal triumph that happened to me--today, actually. Today, I went to a Historical Nonfiction Book Club at the Smithtown Library. It was early in the morning (about 10:30). The book we were covering was “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” by Rebecca Skloot. For those of you who haven’t read it, I would check it out. It’s the story of the HeLa cells, which have been used in everything, from polio vaccines to medical breakthroughs in other fields--in fact, they have been sent up into space! This also tells the human side of the story, how these cells, which were cancerous, were harvested from a woman named Henrietta Lacks, how her family made no money off of the research, and how Deborah Lacks (Henrietta’s daughter) found out more about her mother. I’d say more, but I’d ruin the book completely! 

Back to the reason I am writing this: for those of you who don’t know the man behind the blog, I am very socially anxious. In fact, I am actually diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum (I think I still am even with the DSM change, but I’m not sure). Being in large groups of over 5 people, let’s say, makes me very uncomfortable. But here, at the Smithtown Library, I was very comfortable. There were 10 people there, which would have been enough to make me squirm. I did at first--hopefully not noticeably--and after a few minutes, and after I had participated a bit, I became more comfortable. The instructor was very nice and helped steer the conversation, making sure that everyone who had a thought about the book on a particular question was heard. The room felt “safe” (in the same sense that when you find a psychologist you are comfortable with, you feel “safe”) and, unlike many other times I had been in a group, I did not feel judged or put on the spot. In fact, the instructor did a great job welcoming me into the group and even agreed with some of the points that I made. 

Usually, I would not have gone to such an event. However, since it was something that was a huge interest of mine (history--I was a history and political science major in college!), I figured I would try it. I thought that I would wind up being shy and not saying a lot and just taking it all in, but from the moment the group started, I definitely wanted to say a lot--which is a good thing, and totally unlike me! 

If I am not busy, I will definitely go to the next one, in July. I definitely recommend going to their book club if you’re reading this in Long Island near Smithtown. I just wanted to share some thoughts and a personal triumph, and politics will return next week. Thank you. 

Benghazi: Does it matter

 A headline that has been reported on almost non-stop by Fox News is that of the embassy bombings in Benghazi. Last time, the question was whether the Ambassador and others were left to die. This time, the question is whether there was a cover up as to the reasoning behind it. The Republicans cite many internal memos, the public questions why Clinton was not aware of the situation, and GOP members criticize it as, among other things, the “worst incident to happen in a Presidential administration.” Dick Cheney said those last lines. And while your sides are hurting from so much laughing at the irony, Lindsay Graham says that Benghazi is “Not a Fox News story; it’s a real-life story,” completely ignoring the fact that only Fox News is covering the story in this much depth and negativity. They’ve had everyone from lawmakers to former high-ranking military members to the general public interviewed on their show. And all of them—surprise, surprise—say that the administration bungled their response. But enough about Fox News. The question I am addressing here is: does it matter whether there was a cover-up?

The answer, to me, is no. Though the Republicans do have some interesting talking points, the most compelling of which I’ve found to be that the Obama Administration has no problem trotting out successes such as the killing of Osama Bin Laden, they are barking up the wrong tree. Rather that worry about the 12 revisions of the talking points, the last of which was handed to Susan Rice when she went on TV and, as they say, “deliberately misleading the American public,” there are simply other areas of this “Scandal” that they could be focusing on.

If you really want to show your party’s strength on Benghazi, forget about the pettiness of who knew what, and when they knew it, you should be using these talking points:

#1: On the Intelligence Committee, you should be stressing for major overhauls in the way embassy security is handled. If there have been, as Fox News has reported, numerous security breaches in the past in Benghazi or elsewhere, there should be insistence and the putting-forth of solutions as to how to fix these problems. It should be stressed that, going forward, these security risks should not be ignored and should be dealt with as quickly and as quietly as possible, pushing for more technology and more armed guards if the situation merits it.

#2: On the Armed Forces Committee, you should be stressing for a Rapid-Deployment Force. This will be one that could, especially in times of crisis, go into an area, take out the offenders, and leave. This force would be able to be scrambled rapidly and would be on alert constantly for when the next security breach happens.

#3: On the National Security Committee, you should be stressing for those tasks with Terrorism to do their job and drag this failure out into the limelight. National Security focuses on terrorism. How in the world could the President’s National Security team not be prepared for an attack anywhere in the world on, of all date, 9/11.

#4: In general, Republicans should be pushing for more transparency, not only on the Congressional committees, but also with the public in general.

What the above approach does is it changes the focus from hindsight to telling the American public, “Look, this happened, and if you vote us back into office, it will not happen on our watch again. We are serious about National Security.” And after all, isn’t that what the Republicans want, to own an issue again?

'Torial Tuesday #4: On Coming Out

I was inspired this week by the coming out of a certain Wizards player in the NBA finally coming out to the world and being the first openly gay athlete in the major 4 sports (NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL). I was struck by how many people were supportive of him. And it got me thinking:

In every situation where there is something difficult to do, there are many people who will support you. There will be a few detractors. Goodness knows that, in my life, though I am straight, there have been so many times I have been discouraged. But don't let those naysayers get to you. They will keep you from being who you are. Don't hide yourself; embrace yourself. That NBA player probably has twice as many friends as he had before, plus so many people idolizing him for doing the world's most simple truth, and that is to be true to oneself.

If you deny who you are, you become miserable. If you become miserable, you cannot become comfortable in your own skin. Goodness knows how many times it took me to realize that if I do not really embrace myself, acknowledge that I have challenges, and learn how to deal with them, as well as found a very supportive community on Facebook and elsewhere, I would be depressed out of my mind.

I would like to say to that Wizards player, Jason Collins, to keep being who he is. He did a very brave thing. Unfortunately, acknowledgement of yourself and who you are as an individual should not be brave. It should be commonplace, and people should generally be more accepting of who you are.

'Torial Tuesday #3: Media Coverage of Terror Attacks

In the wake of the Boston Bombings, there is one thing that has never ceased to amaze me: the amount of time that the suspect and the act get on the air of a terror attack. Folks, terror suspects do not deserve the time of day. In the first 5 days, yes, absolutely they needed to be aired because the FBI was on the lookout for the suspects and needed our help.

However, once all is said and done and the suspect is arrested, the media should then make the terror suspects a mere footnote in their coverage. These acts of cowardice do not deserve the massive amount of airtime they get. Instead, attention should be rightfully paid to the victims of an act of terror, mass killing, and so on. These suspects do not deserve to have their successes played on the air time after time.

Instead, I say that these suspects and acts of violence should only be marginalized, while the media pays tribute to the victims and the heroes who helped those in need. Innocent victims of terror attacks and murder and so forth should be paid homage to, while the suspect is largely ignored. Doing this gives the exact opposite effect that terrorists and murderers want: their names and acts will be largely forgotten, while the victims and heroes will be memorialized. This is the true way to give justice to victims and lionize the heroes.

Time may forget the suspects and acts of malice over time, but doing this is the only way to ensure that the heroes and victims live on--and rightly so.

'Torial Tuesday #2: Going Forward--in Reverse?

Ireland has it right--but in the wrong way.

Yes, I said Ireland. For those of you who missed it, a church in Ireland has said that, if gay marriage were legalized in the UK, they would cease to recognize state marriages and instead only perform weddings.

The problem with this is that the church has it right, but not so right. It seems to think that this is a punishment for legalizing marriage. However, their idea can be applied to America. Why? Because, of course, this nation was founded on the separation of church and state.

For too long, the church has allowed marriage licenses to be signed at wedding ceremonies. Weddings are the religious rite--the signing of the marriage license is the legalese. In fact, were there to be a perfect divorce of church and state, only weddings would be performed, birth and death certificates would be signed only at a government office, and so on. There is nothing that makes an atheist's birth somewhat "more" significant than a Christian's birth. Likewise, there is nothing that makes a marriage to one of the same sex any more significant than marriage to one of the opposite sex.

The lesson can be applied in this instance and so many other instances. This is how you keep the church out of government--you restrict its access to matters of government, keeping them entirely separate. Unless...

...unless of course, you want to make the church an organ of the state and no longer be "religious." In this case, churches would be subject to the same regulations of the state. For instance, churches would have to provide birth control, health insurance, bail out bankers, be responsible for voting on legalizing gambling, provide free and fair elections devoid of religious propaganda (Not to mention that, come election time, there could be no homilies for or against a candidate or proposition, etc.), provide counseling on end-of-life, be subject to all the provisions of ObamaCare, speak for the government (meaning a religious czar or something would have to be appointed), and, of course, provide coverage for abortion. Oh, and if that's not enough, because the church would cease to be "religious," this means that it would be subject to taxation. And we're not talking one church; we are talking ALL of them.

Needed News #1

What is North Korea thinking?

News Story in a nutshell: North Korea has shredded the peace agreement with South Korea, and threatened to attack the United States and South Korea. It has also said it is in a "State of War" with South Korea In fact, as we speak it is readying several missiles and the US would "not be surprised" (According to CNN) if North Korea attacked South Korea or even Guam in the United States. In fact, the US has set up missile defenses in Guam and has said that it cannot guarantee the safety of those in its embassies past April 12th (if I remember rightly, according to Fox News).


Commentary: What are they thinking?! Assuming for a moment that one was rational, which the leader of North Korea clearly isn't: Both Afghanistan and Iraq were blown away within days of their initial invasions. Qaddafi was blown away in Libya, and that was without the US directly leading NATO forces. The North Korean leadership, which showed-albeit for a brief moment--promise towards modernization, has proved itself to be more insane (from my perspective) than its predecessor, Kim Jong Il.

If North Korea launches a missile at either South Korea or Guam, the most likely scenario would be that a drone will be used to take out the leaders of North Korea. Why a drone? Because to do a land invasion would be costly. In fact, the the US decides to do a land invasion, it could wind up like the Korean War all over again. Thus and therefore, it is safer to take out the North Korean military with a drone and be done with it.

Even China, who is the only nation that is on speaking terms with the increasingly isolated North Korea, has said that what North Korea is doing is unacceptable and has already joined in on at least one UN resolution against North Korea.

If North Korea continues down this path, it may be the endgame for a regime that has oppressed its people, jailed them, and has continued to starve them. In this case, the United States could definitely dress it up as a humanitarian mission, much like in Libya. In fact, it is increasingly unlikely that North Korea's leadership will survive this as we speak, should they launch a missile at neighboring South Korea or at Guam.

The Power of the NRA

New Features:

‘Torial Tuesday:

There is a new feature starting this Tuesday is that I am going to run an editorial on some of the most urgent news of the week. 

Needed News:

Every Sunday, I am going to post links to various articles about the news of the week and what caught my eye the most. 

Monthly Paper:

Every month, I will post a full-fledged paper on an issue, be it a book review or an opinion page. 

 We will begin the new cycle with today’s editorial. 

The Power of the NRA

The NRA is an archaic organization, and has clearly too much power. Once a serious organization, the NRA has ceased to be a driving force for the betterment of consumers and instead has turned out to be a laughingstock. 

The NRA goes through one notorious debacle after another, suggesting ludicrous solutions to problems: too many people with guns? Arm more people! Too many people with mental illness having guns? Arm the school guards! Too many people who are untrained? Train them to have better abilities. The list goes on.

The NRA has become a shell of its former self and, was one to stop and listen to its head, would understand that its leader, Wayne LaPiere, is inept, clumsy, and foolish. Not only is he foolish, he says outlandish things that, while they may be aimed at starting a conversation, wind up generating more controversy than it is worth. 

The NRA needs to stop being so inept and so controversial, and evolve its position, not only from a gun advocacy perspective, but also from a gun responsibility perspective. It should take its cues from the alcohol industry, and remind its members that with the power of a gun in their hand, comes great responsibility. 

Too much emphasis is placed on the right of owning a gun than it is to use then gun the way it should be used, which, regardless of the type of weapon, is for self-defense or hunting. Ted Nugent, who famously not-so-seriously threatened to assassinate President Obama, is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. Gun owners should be reminded to be mature with their purchases and be reminded that they, through their gun, have the ability to take life, and should do so with great caution.

Some may argue that AK-47s are necessary in case the government tries to become a dictatorship. However, it is the opinion of the Muser that a well-aimed drone attack or a bomb could wipe out any resistance its rebellious citizens may try to muster up. These rebellions work much better in countries like Syria and Iraq--one country of which was obliterated by the United States in a matter of hours...twice. So this argument flies out the window.

Some may argue that as an American, it is our right to bear arms. No one is trying to take these rights away; in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that in times of great duress (the recent spate of shootings in the United States would certainly qualify), rights can be limited. Additionally, “Arms” in colonial times was simply a musket. The logic test that this argument fails the smell test: if “arms” means everything that can be used as a weapon, then surely citizens must be allowed to purchased rocket launchers and drones. 

Finally, some may argue that the NRA is necessary to preserve the rights to own guns. This passes the logic test. But with the power NRA has, comes great responsibility to be mature, be responsible, educate its members about the perils of gun ownership, and so on. Though assault weapons may, in the end, still be legal, the NRA should tell its members to be responsible with its purchases. 

NCE 301: Meet the Press

Welcome to News and Current Events 301! For this week, we will cover 5 interviews on Meet the Press.

This Unit is the Meet the Press unit. It will deal with 5 interviews from this year that deal with politics. We will NOT pay attention to the panelists (though you are more than welcome to watch them and bring some of their information into the discussion) as panelists tend to try to influence us on what to think about what we just saw. With that in mind, let’s get started!

For Meet the Press, the months of June, August, September, AND October were the juiciest for political interviews, etc. The subject matters that were covered were:

1)    After the 1^st Presidential Debate

2)    Joe Biden saying he was in favor of Same-Sex Marriage

3)    A Portrait of Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan

4)    Mitt Romney’s first (Non-Fox) TV Interview

5)    The Middle East Uprising in Libya, Egypt, and so forth.

We will go in order as the above.

Post-Debate #1

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49318712/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UKA6maV9nww

(The transcript is below for those of you who don’t want to watch it)

(We are only going up past the 24-minute mark)

October 7^th, 2012: One Sunday after the first Presidential debate in which Barack Obama did not seem to be a very enthusiastic candidate, and one that the pundits clearly thought Mitt Romney won. NOTE: Since this is a PANEL interview, we are only going to deal with the two political, non-panel (on the panel) guests: Newt Gingrich and Robert Gibbs.

Discussion, Robert Gibbs:

1)    What did Gibbs think about the jobs numbers?

2)    What is Gibbs’ take on Romney’s debate performance?

3)    What is Gibbs’ take on the jobs numbers?

4)    What is Gibbs’ take on Obama’s debate performance?

Discussion, Newt Gingrich:

1)    What did Gingrich think about the jobs numbers?

2)    According to him, what does the “average American” think and how does it play to the election?

3)    What does Newt Gingrich say about Jack Welch’s claim on the job numbers? Why does he say people are losing confidence in Washington?

4)    What is Gingrich’s take on Obama’s debate performance?

Long Question: Looking solely at Robert Gibbs and at Newt Gingrich, who do you think voices concerns closer to your own if the election were held again? In other words, who makes the better case?

Joe Biden in favor of Same-Sex Marriage

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47311900/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/may-joe-biden-kelly-ayotte-diane-swonk-tom-brokaw-chuck-todd/

May 6^th, 2012: Joe Biden comes out in favor of same-sex marriage, making him the first Vice-President of ANY American Presidential administration ever to back same-sex marriage. We’re going to try to stay away from your own personal views, as that could get nasty; instead, we are going to deal with the politics of it, as well as deal with the other things that Mr. Biden said.

Discussion:

1)    Does Vice-President Biden think about the state of the economy? (Remember, this is May) How does he dress up the results?

2)    How does Vice-President Biden admit that there is a recession?

3)    Why does he think the American public should not elect Candidate Romney?

4)    What is Chen’s future, according to Joe Biden?

5)    What is Biden’s take on the rumors about him not being the running mate?

6)    What is Biden’s take on the issue of love?

7)    What accomplishments does Biden say that Obama has on the issue of National Security? Why does he think Mitt Romney fails in this regard?

8)    Why does Joe Biden want a strong Republican Party?

Long Question: In the realm of politics, do you think Vice-President Biden should have come out in favor of same-sex marriage BEFORE the President? Do you think this “forced” Obama’s hand in this matter? Is it really the Vice-President’s place to mention his views independently of the President?

Portrait of Paul Ryan

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48634410/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UKgxc6V9nww

August 12, 2012: Meet the Press did a profile on the recently-announced vice-presidential running mate, Paul Ryan. As you read and/or watch, answer the following questions:

Discussion Questions:

1)    What does Priebus say about the economy?

2)    Do you think than Paul Ryan was the most risky choice Romney could have made for running mate? Why or why not?

3)    Describe Reince Priebus’s statement about Paul Ryan’s ideas.

4)    How does Paul Ryan want to change the Medicare/Medicaid system?

5)    Is Romney’s vision on Medicare the same vision as Paul Ryan’s, according to Priebus?

6)    Is Paul Ryan “Ready on day 1” according to Priebus?

7)    What are Paul Ryan’s most desirable characteristics, according to Scott Walker?

8)    What is the opinion of most of Americans, according to the poll?

9)    According to Scott Walker, has the Obama administration succeeded or failed in protecting “future generations?”

Long-Answer Question: Do you think Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan to win Wisconsin? If so, do you think that that was shortsighted? Why or why not?

Mitt Romney’s First Non-Fox TV Interview

            September 9, 2012: Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney goes on Meet the Press, hoping to explain himself and his ideas further. For this one, we are talking more about his political views, which is the second part of his interview.

Discussion:

1)    Why does Mitt Romney say the math for his economic plan adds up?

2)    What does he want to increase defense spending?

3)    Why does Erskine Bowles think that his plan will not work?

4)    What methods does he plan to use to “lower the burden” on Middle Income Families?

5)    What does he say make him qualified to balance the budget?

6)    When does he say the budget will be balanced?

7)    Does he want to cut a deal with Democrats?

8)    What is the problem with the country, according to him?

9)    What does he want to change about “healthcare reform?”

10) What will Romney do about Medicare?

11) How does Mitt Romney explain why Afghanistan was left out of the convention speech?

12) What is Obama’s greatest failure of his foreign policy, according to Mitt Romney?

13) Does he think the country is safer because of Obama?

14) What is Romney’s “red line?”

15) Will Romney overturn Roe v. Wade?

16) Does Romney care about his political prospects?

17) Why does Romney think he should be President?

Long Question: Do you think Mitt Romney did a good job of explaining himself and his views? Why or why not?

Middle East Views

September 16^th, 2012: Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, goes on Meet the Press and calls the Benghazzi embassy attack an “isolated incident.” Many politicians, notably on the right, claim that she and the Obama Administration were playing politics and trying to downplay the importance of Al Qaeda and other extremists elements that President Obama had done a good job of defeating thus far.

Discussion Question:

1)    What does she say the attack was based on?

2)    What is the US view?

3)    What does she liken it to?

4)    What information about the incident does she currently have at hand?

5)    Does Susan Rice say there was any sort of “failure” there?

6)    How does Egypt serve U.S. “interests?”

7)    What does she say about the other Middle East leaders?

8)    Was the U.S. “apologizing” for the violence?

9)    What does Rice trump up?

10)  What is the U.S.’s “line in the sand” when it comes to Iran?

11)  According to Rice, are the dealings with Iran succeeding? Why or why not?

Long Question: Does what Susan Rice says about that incident, match what actually happened? Why or why not? 

NCE 301: Gallup Poll

Welcome to News and Current Events 301! For this week, we will cover five polls as covered by Gallup.

This Unit is the Gallup Poll unit. It will deal with 5 polls that helped influence political events this year. In addition, there is a Gallup Event on “Religion, Wellbeing, and Health.”

For Gallup, the months of August and October were the strongest for polls that described the political landscape:

1)    Approval Rating of Congress

2)    A description what a “likely voter” is

3)    Initial reactions to Paul Ryan

4)    Americans’ Top Priorities for the next President.

(The above in is addition to the religion coverage)

We will go in order as the above.

Americans’ Views of Congress Revert to All-Time Low

Link: http://www.gallup.com/video/156722/americans-views-congress-revert-time-low.aspx

August 16^th, 2012: Just about three months before the election, Gallup Poll released their date on approval ratings for Congress. Keeping in mind the recent elections, answer these questions.

Discussion:

1)    In what other month had the lowest approval rating been reached?

2)    What is the percentage of people that approve of Congress?

3)    Where has Congressional Approval typically averaged?

4)    When was the high point of Congressional approval? What event happened then? Was it an outlier?

5)    Knowing this, would you have advised Romney to pick Paul Ryan as a running mate?

Long Question: Keeping in mind the results of the Congressional elections this year, is the result surprising? Why or why not?

Election Matters: The Lowdown on Likely Voters

Link: http://www.gallup.com/video/157943/election-matters-lowdown-likely-voters.aspx

October 8^th, 2012:  Election Matters is a segment that Gallup runs every election and explains the different issues in play for the different candidates. This episode, they discussed “likely voters.” Likely voters are not the demographic of all of those who like a candidate, but instead are those that Gallup deems most likely to show up and vote on election day.

Discussion:

1)    What did the poll about the first (Presidential) debate say?

2)    What group did Obama still have a favorable lead for (Registered or likely)?

3)    Who does better amongst likely voters?

4)    Why did they think the election was too close to call?

Long Question: Keeping in mind the results of the election, the outcome of certain states, the outcome in certain swing states, AND the way in which they were first projected on media news outlets, are you surprised that the election turned out the way it did?

Election Matters: Americans’ Initial Reactions to Paul Ryan

Link: http://www.gallup.com/video/156659/election-matters-americans-initial-reactions-paul-ryan.aspx

August 14^th, 2012: The American public is introduced to Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate as Vice President in the Presidential election. Gallup reported their initial findings on this edition of Election Matters.

Discussion:

1)    What was the American public’s initial reaction to Paul Ryan?

2)    How does this compare to Sarah Palin’s reaction?

3)    Did the choice more Americans more or less likely to vote Republican?

4)    Why is Paul Ryan running for the state different than voting for him for the House?

Long Question: Considering the American public’s reactions… do you think Paul Ryan was a good pick as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate?

Americans’ Top Priorities for the Next President

August 2, 2012: Gallup Poll releases what Americans think are the top priorities for the Next President.

Link: http://www.gallup.com/video/156407/americans-top-priorities-next-president.aspx

Discussion:

1)    What was the top priority?

2)    What was the next one?

3)    Considering how many people wanted to restore Medicare, was it still a good pick for Paul Ryan as running mate?

4)    How many people considered global warming to be a top priority? What about taxes on the wealthy?

Long Question: Considering the top (And lower) priorities mentioned, who had the most priorities in common with the American people? Did the outcome of the popular vote surprise you at the end of the election?

Gallup Event: Religion, Wellbeing, and Health—Part 1

Link: http://www.gallup.com/video/152798/gallup-event-religion-wellbeing-health-part.aspx

February 2^0th, 2012: Gallup has an event in which it describes the findings in a recent poll on religion. The results were that people had positives feelings when it came to religion. NOTE: Since this is an hour-long presentation, we will only be discussing the first 3 presenters (up to the 30-minute mark, roughly).

Discussion:

1)    What is subjective wellbeing? How is it measured?

2)    Describe the method using the buzzer.

3)    What did Gallup find about church attendance, etc.?

4)    What was the sample size? What is its significance?

5)    How many people have no religious identity, but are classified as very religious?

6)    What was the “least religious, religious group” that they looked at?

7)    What is the most religious state in the USA?

8)    What are the 6 domains? Which one is the exception to the rule?

9)    The more religious you are, what are you likely to do in terms of taking care of yourself?

10)  How do they avoid the self-perception bias?

11)  Do you get happier as you become more religious?

12) What specifically about makes religious people happy?

13)  What happens the more frequently you go to church?

14)  What was their methodology?

15)  What is the best day of the week, according to ONLY religious people?

16) What is the correlation between church attendance and happiness?

17)  If you don’t feel God’s presence, what happens?

18)  If you have close friends in organizations, work, etc. but do NOT have close friends at church OR don’t go to church, what happens to happiness?

19) Compare close friends at church to close friends outside of church.

Long Question: If you are religious, what about church makes you happy in the moment? If you are not religious, what makes you happiest?