CONSTUTITION, by CHANCE NKUNDIMANA

              Today the image of the earth is not the same as when it was created. Violence, earthquakes, and tsunamis destroyed people’s lives; many of them fled their country due to these circumstances.  But the main reason people flee countries is war. If we’re to question some of these people who fled their country, each person will say “war makes us flee our country” they have passion to stay in their country, but dictatorship, communism, Nazism, socialism etc… won’t let them practice their freedom. Some of their family members might be kidnaped and tortured to death because they practice their freedom. Hitler said “national socialism will use its own revolution for establishing a new world order.” Germany during Hitler’s regime didn’t establish freedom because one man has the power of ruling others. If they had a constitution that gives them the rights to practice their freedom, this structure will give them the right to establish their 
freedom. “The Constitution is certainly the most influential legal document in existence today.”

what people are seeking for

Overthrowing one man rule 

Each developed country or Western power has its own written constitution that gives rights to their citizens. The only reason they are powerful countries is because they have freedom, and it prevents government from tumbling on their rights. Other countries admire the United States constitution because of how it defends people moralities. Even though there are some changes made to the amendments; it still shields the civilian rights. 

Political systems bring confusion that can affect globalization and it will have an impact on developing countries in a bad way or good way. Look at Syria today: innocent civilians are been killed, their homes are being destroyed; they are fleeing to Turkey so they can be protected under the Turkish government. Look at Iraq today; it seems the foundation of the constitution is ruling now, instead of one man ruling. The whole population is in unity. Laws must have the root that holds them together to able to function. It is not easy to start writing a constitution while other countries have their own constitution written more than two hundred years. It won’t be simple. America has  its own constitution after gaining independence from England, they did not wait for 50 years to write one; they knew a new nation must born with its own constitution. Other countries cited the United States Supreme Court’s case, not only to compare their cases but to see how the Americans judged their citizens. For example, Canada adapted the bill of rights and they interpreted it as “a living tree.” 

The revolution of a country's constitution must face the new demands that will lead them to obtain sovereignty. In America, they accepted and faced the new challenges against Britain. Political rebellion is like a pattern that holds two ropes together; if one rope is missing the other rope won’t be able to function. That means fighting for the liberty of all, the mind sets need to be united to able to defeat dictatorship or communism government. Uprising can cause a lot of mess and blood shed; sometimes a regime can be against its own people. This ensued on Libya government.

One man rule

Welcome to a new world of campaigning! by Michael Wermers

      Video Games have grown to a multi-billion dollar industry. Some people can't get enough of them.  Many spend thousands of dollars on them a year, some a few couple hundred a year, and it would be hard to find people who spend nothing on video games. Regardless of your viewpoint or whether or not you feel you have a video; chances are you have one.  That game could be on a computer, used through a video game console, or even on a tablet.  If the device is electronic there is a giant possibility that you can get video games on it.

There were three giant blockbuster games, made just for gaming consoles, that came out this year; Madden 13, Halo 4, and Black Ops II. Madden sold out in the first week and earned $95 million.  Halo 4 sold out in just 24 hours and made $200 million.  The Black Ops II numbers have yet to be published.  Increasing video game profits have been enhanced over the last decade, by video games companies finally clicking onto the idea of embedding and selling advertisements into their games.  The video console games have hidden advertisements as well as advertisements plastered everywhere.  It did not take iOS games long to jump on this bandwagon.  iOS games often provide two versions:  a pay for version without advertisements or a fee version with ads.  The free iOS games are littered with advertisements.

            With this year’s presidential election one of the candidates entered territory no other presidential candidate has ever entered.  Most people are used to seeing attack, get out the vote, and I’m the right candidate for you.    For decades candidates have been making appearances on MTV shows to attract the 18 to 25 year old voter.  Their goal is to promote themselves and to preach about going out and registering to vote. Even though television has been used to attract this age group of voters, they still are not reaching the level of audience they want.  What these candidates need to realize is that their audience is right there waiting for them.  They are the audience playing a video game.  As indicated above, two games alone sold out in a week, this creates a perfect marketing medium.  Through video game advertising candidates would have a great way to reach the 18 to 25 year old audience.  This year it finally happened, President Barrack Obama stepped into the untapped market.   In the 2012 president race Obama stepped up his advertisements, he placed ads on video games. Here is one of his ads:

This advertisement appeared in Madden 13.  Through this advertisement he not only promoted himself, he is encouraging people to register and then vote.  Additionally, he did not just reach the 18-25 year olds playing Madden, he reached everyone playing Madden.  If a player of this game had not considered voting important before this may have been all that was needed to get out the vote.  By the time the next elections roll around it should be anticipated that video games will be used as the vehicle to place attack, get out the vote, and I’m the right candidate for you ads.  Candidates will no longer have to depend on television, billboard, and newspaper advertisements.

Reflections on 2012 US Presidential Elections, by Jameson Goetz

On November 6^th, Barack Obama was reelected to his second four-year term as President of the United States. President Obama defeated former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney with a final count of 332 to 206 Electoral College votes. Obama also defeated Romney 50% to 48% in the popular vote. As a supporter of President Obama, I was definitely pleased with his reelection. Still, considering what has happened in the past four years, I am certainly surprised. By nearly all standards, President Obama defied political odds by winning reelection to a second term.

This post from Barack Obama quickly became the most “re-tweeted” post in Twitter’s history.

Here are some interesting facts related to President Obama’s reelection:

·      President Obama’s margin of victory was significantly lower than in 2008 (53% to 46%). No president has ever been re-elected by a smaller margin than the previous election.

·      Obama’s popular vote majority was the lowest of any re-elected incumbent in the last century.

·      President Obama’s public approval ratings have averaged below 50%. No other incumbent candidate has ever won a presidential election with such low public approval.

·      Throughout most of President Obama’s first term, fewer than 40% of Americans believed that the country was “moving in the right direction”. The day after the election, only 43% of Americans believed the country was moving in the right direction.

·      Polls indicated that prospective voters favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” over President Obama by a margin of roughly 9%.

·      On Election Day, the unemployment rate in the United States had risen to roughly 7.9%, which is far higher than any time in the 25 years before Obama’s Inauguration in January 2009.

These statistics are pretty puzzling, as well as somewhat alarming. Do Americans currently have any confidence in President Obama? They seem to lack confidence in President Obama, yet they reelected him by a fairly convincing margin. Why did a majority of Americans vote for President Obama? Many people, myself included, point to changing demographics. The Sunday before the election, the Pew Research Center released its final prediction on the outcome of the election: President Obama would win, beating Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 47 percent. The Pew Research Center described what it called a “demographic transformation”:

·      Women favored Obama over Romney 53 % to 40%

·      Romney’s support among voters age 65 and older dwindled to just 9 percentage points.

·      Nationally, nonwhite voters made up 28% of all voters, up from 26% in 2008. Obama won 80% of these voters, the same as four years ago.

·      In Ohio, African Americans were 15% of the electorate, up from 11% in 2008. In Florida, Hispanics were 17% of the electorate, an increase from 14% in 2008.

·      Nationally, Romney won the white vote, 59% to 39%.

·      Nationally, Obama received “overwhelming” support from African Americans and Latinos.

·      Obama lost the independent vote, 50% to 45%. However, Democrats made up 38% of all voters while Republicans made up just 32%.

·      40% of white Christians voted for Obama.

·      20 % of voters claimed no religious affiliation while roughly one-third of Americans age 18-22 called themselves atheists, agnostics, or “nothing at all”. 70% of this voting bloc voted for Obama.

·      Pointing the future diminishing influence of voters age 65 or older, The Pew Research Center’s indicated that future elections will continue to be increasingly decided by women, young people, and minorities.

Voters in Washington and Colorado legalized the recreational use of marijuana. In Massachusetts, voters legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons

I consider myself to have liberal views on social issues. However, I describe my views on economic issues as more moderate, not liberal. I believe the political views of my generation as a whole could also be described this way. In the 2012 Presidential Election voters ages 18 to 29 made up 19% percent of voters. 60% of this voting bloc voted for President Obama, while 36% voted for Mitt Romney. The Huffington Post addressed this generation gap in an article titled “Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”.

The increasing popularity of Libertarianism, an ideology that generally embraces socially liberal and economically conservative views, has grown increasingly popular with younger voters. This year’s Libertarian Party for President, Gary Johnson enthusiastically expressed his support for equal rights for LGBTQ persons and an end to the prohibition on marijuana.

Voters in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voted in favor of the right to marry for same-sex couples. Voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 I also believe that a significant amount of all voters, not just those from my generation, were alienated by Mitt Romney’s conservative views on a variety of social issues. In general, Americans have begun to view with skepticism the strict laws regulating marijuana. Americans views on civil rights for LGBTQ persons have dramatically changed. Most research indicates that nowadays a majority of Americans reject the idea of withholding basic civil rights (marriage, employment protections, the right to openly serve in the military) from LGBTQ persons. Americans also tend to view favorable granting more rights to undocumented workers, an overwhelming majority of whom are Latino.

This widespread rejection of social conservatism, partly a result of changing demographics in the U.S., may help explain why President Obama was reelected even though Americans favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” by a margin of roughly 9%.

I certainly do not see those Americans who embrace social conservatism giving up their fight anytime soon. I am curious to see how this political divide will play out in the future. Is it inevitable that we will grow even more divided politically?

According to recent projections, the amount of money spent on campaign advertising during the 2012 Election increased dramatically to roughly 6 billion dollars. The dramatic increase results directly for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations and unions. Political junkies expected that an increase in spending on campaign advertising would result from the Supreme Court’s decision. Many also predicted that the increased spending would significantly alter election results; however, those predictions proved to be wrong.

            Major Outcomes of the 2012 Election:

·      The Republican Party still holds a majority in the House of Representatives.

·      The Democratic Party still holds a majority in the Senate.

·      The Democratic Party’s candidate won reelection to a second four-year term as president.

So what changed? Not a whole lot besides a decrease in productive political discourse due to the substantial increase in spending on campaign advertisements. If anything, I think the 2012 Election (specifically the outcome of Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) demonstrates a genuine need for dramatic campaign finance reform. The rise of the so-called Super PACs frustrated many Americans, regardless of political affiliation or ideology. I am hopeful, though somewhat skeptical, that we will soon see bipartisan action to appropriately address the issue. The Huffington Post recently published an article pertaining to the movement towards campaign finance reform. If we as Americans could ever come together, I would have to believe that it would be to address this outrageous spending on campaign advertisements.

“Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/youth-vote-gap-republican_n_2100155.html

“Campaign Finance Reformers Get Back To Work After Record Election Spending”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/campaign-finance-reform_n_2122811.html

No Interest in Interest Groups, by Christopher Michels

            I am extremely passionate when it comes to United States History. When it comes to the Presidency, wars, or globalization, I am all ears and ready to go. However, some of the more trivial details of our History slide by me as uninteresting. One such topic that recently came up in class is interest groups. Most of what I know about interest groups comes from summer mornings in South Dakota. Every commercial break during the Price is Right on CBS would have commercials dedicated to A.A.R.P. This is probably because the Price is Right is traditionally for an older audience, but I still loved it. Though I had no idea what interests groups were at the time, I was, however, able to use deductive reasoning to see that it was some sort of assembly of older people. I now know that it is the American Association for Retired Persons. So even when uneducated on the topic, interest groups were still part of my daily life.

            I now know more on the subject, and I see just how important they are. I believe in a free country such as the United States, interest groups are the one of the cornerstones of freedom.  Interests groups are perhaps the best examples of our basic rights of speech and assembly. However, just because interest groups have the rights to speak out does not mean they always get their way. A big example that comes to mind is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a.k.a PETA. These people are able to air commercials, gather in large groups, and let their voice be heard. However, if it were up to them, no one would be able to eat meat, or even swat at a housefly. More people than not believe that PETA is too extreme. And even with the freedom of speech, there are still restrictions PETA has faced. I say this because again, I have a particular example in mind. It was for a super bowl in the mid 2000’s. A PETA commercial was actually banned from airing on national television, and for good reason. The PETA commercial started with a bathtub. There was a woman inside the tub, and her private parts were only slightly covered with bubbles. The woman proceeded to take a large pumpkin and lick it and caress it as if it were her lover. One can still find the commercial online if they would like. The point PETA was trying to get across is that vegetables can be just as delicious as meat…at least I think that was the reason. However, even if the message was good, it was way too odd and risky to be a commercial of the super bowl, especially after the Janet Jackson incident a year or two before.

            Another example of interest groups not always getting their way is the National Rifle Association. The NRA is a pretty basic group, they want to keep the right to bear arms. However, with high crime rates in the country, many are questioning whether or not this should be a basic right and if there should be more strict laws. Personally, I do not give a crap about guns. I do not think guns and the crime rate exactly go hand in hand. I believe even if there were strict gun laws, if a criminal truly wanted a gun, they would find a way to have one. It is not a bad idea to have a gun in the house for the safety of a family, as long as people are smart about it.

            Another problem with interest groups is their competitive nature. Even with the two examples I gave, there is hostility. PETA must hate the NRA because of hunting animals. Interest groups are important in democracy, but they are also a contributor in the two party system. Parties absorb an interest group to take a side and gain votes. I know now how important interest groups are, but they can still be a difficult topic to tackle. 

Workhorses of Democracy, by Cole Meunier

 

Interest groups are thought to be the workhorses of democracy, and quite frankly they are. Without them, our voices would not be heard and we would not be able to sway politicians to our liking. One of the best cases for an interest group would have to be the National Rifle Association (NRA). I’m sure most have heard of them, hell some may even think of some fat redneck with an assault rifle. While that may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is that they stand for something. Interest groups are a group of people drawn or acting together in support of a common interest or to voice a common concern. Now the NRA does just that by lobbying Congress on gun control laws, and advertising based on gun laws.

                  Now you may be asking yourself how this involves me and why should I care. By sitting on the sidelines not doing anything makes it so easy for your voice not to be heard and well it isn’t. That’s why it is so important to get involved in interest groups or politics in general. With interest groups you are surrounded by like-minded people who have similar or the same views as you. With this your voice is much louder with thousands rather than just one. Now don’t get me wrong you don’t have to be in a group to have your voice heard, it just makes it easier.

                  In 1994 congress passed a law banning the ownership of certain assault rifles. The NRA tried to stop this from passing even with their roughly 3.5 million members (at the time, it is now 4.3 million). Unable to stop the law from passing they were set on ousting members of congress who supported the ban, mostly Democrats, and the current speaker of the house Thomas Foley (D). The NRA poured money into advertisements across the nation about Thomas Foley betraying gun owners across America. November 1994 came around, with the election results. Republicans took both chambers of congress from the Democrats. Not only both chambers were taken, but Thomas Foley lost his bid for re-election making him the first Speaker of the House since 1860 to be defeated. This is one way to show how powerful that interest groups can be, even though they didn’t convince Thomas Foley to change his mind on the gun laws right away, they were still able to influence politics in their favor.

                  This is just one way that one interest group was able to influence politics. Now imagine all the interest groups that exist in America today, now that’s a pretty large number, but they are all trying to do the same and get what they want. I believe this creates more of a Democracy by representation rather than just voting. The problem that I have with just voting is that when you vote for a Politician, that vote makes it seem like you agree with everything that they bring to the table in which you may not agree with. With voting and interest groups you can vote while interest groups keep the politician in check with what you want.

                   Elections just occurred last Tuesday, and say you voted but did not get the candidate that you wanted elected. Don’t worry, life will go on. Things may not be exactly what you wanted but you can still influence and make a change to the government by interest groups. Hopefully this article helps you with your thoughts on interest groups and makes you want to get involved. I would rather have people get involved than not do anything and complain about how they hate policies that the government made. Get involved.                        

 

           

Screens can be Addictive....

**Courtesy of Florencia Magni**

MIT Gangnam Style!

An M.I.T. “Gangnam Style” parody video that has gone viral this week features one of the best known academics at the university -- linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky, the 83-year-old “father of modern linguistics,'' is in the video for about 7 seconds, but the cameo is priceless. Sitting in his office, Chomsky first takes a sip of what appears to be a cup of tea, and then deadpans, “Oppan Chomsky style.” 

A few other notable professors were featured, including Professor Eric Lander, one of the principle leaders of the Human Genome Project. In one scene, Lander dances around Ha, and the two then jump up onto a desk.

“He actually heard of the song before and he was really excited to do it,” Ha said, adding that Lander choreographed the moves on his own.

Ingwon Chae, who was one of the producers for the short, said he was pleasantly surprised at how some professors were so willing to help. “It was a pretty daunting task to shoot emails off to these big professors on campus,” he said.

For more information:

http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/mit/2012/10/noam_chomsky_appears_in_mit_gangnam_style_parody.html