New Definition of a 21st Century Well Informed Citizen

In our era of rapid technological advancement it is constantly a struggle to remain well informed. With all the diverse perspectives and ideas floating around social media hubs such as the television, radio, and the Internet, it is rather hard to NOT stay informed. If you dont know where to look or other sources are searching YOU out, it is just as easy to become misinformed. A well informed 21st century citizen has to be able to adapt well to advancements made in recent years, has reliable sources, and never stops questioning themselves.  A 21st century citizen can also use these sources to aid in informing others and help responsibly debate the many different arguments that today’s politics offer a reasonable, respectful, and understanding manner.


My definition for the most part has remained the same through the entire semester. This is a direct result of how I believe my tolerance levels have increased and how, not that I believe that I am always right which sounds conceded, my pervious definition was vague but precise to the point that it hits all major parts of my beliefs yet retains the body of understanding and confidence in others. Obviously I am overestimating others and myself but hey who said that definitions did any more than define what something would be, not admitting that it actually exists. Like unicorns... like unicorns.

My Question

Should we raise the tax on gasoline?

This change neither favors the left or right political sides, everyone has to pay gas pries even the real wealthy. Could this harm the development of new jobs or businesses? The more one uses the motorways the more one pays. Is this the fairest way to keep money flowing for road projects and to help chip away at our national pile of debt? Is this fair for middle and lower class citizens that need to commute to their jobs and will begin to not afford to be able to get to it? Could this support the development of a healthier life for Americans and the creation of more gas efficient cars or other modes of transportation?  Global warming? Alternative energy?


I personally believe we should increase the price of gas to roughly twice the cost it is now over a 10 year period. This statement alone makes me sound most probably twisted and crazy to the average American. Even paying 4$ per gallon is insane! "We need cheaper, there is so much corruption in the selling of gas!" some may say. But lets take a closer look at the cost of gas around the world and the amount of taxes.


In Canada gas prices are 5.56$ per gallon, 38% of which is only taxes. Now thats about 1.75$ in taxes for every gallon you buy for your car. Lets assume you buy 15 gallons, thats 19.25$ alone paying for taxes. But thats not even the tip of the iceberg. In France gasoline costs 8.29$ per gallon! Taxes there are staggering compared to ours, they pay 4.50$ in taxes for EVERY. SINGLE. GALLON. The money the government makes from this helps them maintain the high speed train systems that interlock the country and help fix the roads and freeways. So this system, although very dramatic is what I believe the United States should being to do so that we can grow forward and more green with transportation, like France although this is a far off hope.


"One should also note that these higher prices, caused by speculators, play right into the hands of Russian "President" Vladimir Putin who benefits from the high oil prices, and Iran itself. Has anyone ever wondered why Iran keeps announcing its nuclear progress to the world, or threatens the Straight of Hormuz -- every time it does, the price of oil is driven higher by speculators even in the face of higher supplies and weak demand."  


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/gas-prices-oil-speculators_b_1359666.html


We need to ween ourselves off of, not only foreign oil, which I agree should be first priority, but also off of our own oil eventually. Oil is a resource that will eventually run out and even if it doesn't happen this year or the next, we are depleting our supply of it and this is negatively affecting our ecosystem both underground and in the skies.

"The big increases in fuel efficiency standards announced recently by the Obama administration for automobiles—and on Wednesday for trucks—will only make matters worse in terms of funding for highway maintenance and construction. 

The sensible response would be to raise the tax, which even Mica correctly regards as a user fee rather than a tax. But he and all but one of his 32 Republican colleagues on the committee have signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose any and all tax increases — even something that is clearly a user fee.

More money is desperately needed for highway construction and maintenance to reduce the economic losses due to the country’s inadequate infrastructure. A new report by the American Society of Civil Engineers said that glaring deficiencies in America’s surface transportation systems drained households and businesses of nearly $130 billion last year, including about $97 billion of increased costs to operate and repair vehicles and $32 billion of increased travel time because of congestion and delays. Within a decade, the economic costs to the country of a deteriorating infrastructure will increase by 82 percent, to $210 billion annually, the report states.

Rep. Nick J. Rahall of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation committee, said in a statement, “The report paints a disturbing picture of how America’s small business and middle class family incomes will be affected by our nation’s deteriorating surface transportation systems.” Cutting spending by a third, as Mica proposes, would make the economic impact “even worse than the grim predictions by the economists in the report,” Rahall said.

Rahall, however, did not suggest funding the needed extra spending by increasing the gasoline tax. Politically that’s a non-starter, but it shouldn’t be in a world of austerity. It would be a fair user fee because it is paid by motorists, and the more one uses the highways, the more one pays."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-17/markets/30032066_1_tax-increases-gasoline-tax-highway-trust-fund#ixzz1wvJPNM7I

So in short, yes I believe we should raise the gas prices, raise them so high that it scares people from the pump. But we should do this in a timely manner so that those who may not be able to avoid buying gas have enough time to cope with the changes and begin to develop more environmentally friendly and healthier life styles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/raise-the-gas-tax/2012/05/25/gJQA46siqU_story.html 

Media

Suggested listening while reading blog.

 Is the trend of more news a good trend for the US?

Well first lets take a view at why it would not be. It may not be good because the media has the power to manipulate an image perceived by the public, and if the media can get the public angry then it only is a vicious circle because most everyone wont admit they're wrong when they are especially about national news.

On the other side if we as the people can retain the idea that not everything we see or hear in any media coverage is true we can keep our sanity.

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"

"To Follow by faith alone is to follow blindly."

~Benjamin Franklin

So is more news a better thing? It's just as much a better thing as only eating spinach for one meal every day. Sure its great for you but do you want to always be eating spinach? Some people do and that's great for them! They can fully emerge themselves in the media coverage and continually be made nervous by the horrifying cover stories as for the rest of us I'm sure a few head stories a day is enough. Plus I'd like to say that we as Americans take media too seriously! That's why we have news-tanment, to remind us that there are things that we should laugh about displayed in a similar fashion to create a sense of security and it being an adult show.

The idea of more media coverage is a give and take situation, there is no right answer and that's why we as humans look for it, because some people need the answers and clarity in the media cause they cant get it in their own life.

Electoral Pre-School

Design a system to elect the president other than the electoral college.  Be detailed in the description and explanation of your system.  After you give a description of your new system, please provide 3 concrete reasons as to why your system is better than the Electoral College.

 “The probability of being run over by a car going to or returning from the polls is similar to the probability of casting the decisive vote. If being run over is worse than having one's preferred candidate lose, then this potential cost of voting alone would exceed the potential gain (Bohanon, Van Cott).”

Personally I believe that majority vote is the most important part of of winning our elections. The whole electoral college structure was because when everyone wanted to vote they did in town and one representative rode on horseback to send the message to the capital. Well, now we can send something to Washington D.C. from anywhere on earth in less than a second. So clearly we are only keeping this system for the nostalgic connection it has to our history and because those who have used and understand it wish to keep it as it is. We respect the founding fathers so much that we take their words on every governmental action and court decision, so when you take into context that this was written over 200 years ago it would clearly need an 'update'. We don't have to change the goal, just change the process. And now with computers everyone can send their votes and even the results could be tallied live! If we could allow this with the idea that the winner of the majority rules, I'm 100% more people would turn out to vote because they would have more power in the election.

Majority vote is exactly what it says it is. Everyone gets one vote, and your own personal vote actually counts towards electing the new president. This is the essence of a democracy. The term democracy mean "rule of the people" in Greek. "Democracy is an egalitarian form of government in which all the citizens of a nation together determine public policy, the laws and the actions of their state, requiring that all citizens (meeting certain qualifications) have an equal opportunity to express their opinion." And in a country that puts 300 million people under 538 electors how can we consider this a democracy? Of course we cant expect everyone in the U.S. to all vote on EVERY bill or decision made by the local or federal governments but we can take a hand in it more than ever and this scares a lot of men who have dedicated their lives to maintaining it for themselves. We could, however most improbable in the near future, actually get rid of representatives altogether and everyone can just represent themselves.

Additionally, it is a failing system. A system where a person can actually win the presidential vote with less than 40% of the popular vote is disgusting and is clearly twisting the system. And although I strongly believe is the change to popular vote we must begin with baby steps so that those that are comfortable with the system don't go into "shock" from all the change, since I'm sure that's what would happen since it would happen to my grandpa and most men in government are about my grandpa's age. So yes I believe that we can change to a majority vote for the president but we must take small steps, like making the districts smaller for electoral colleges and allowing them to split the mass of the votes in the state.

In summation, these are silly practices keep alive by the men who wish to not think for themselves like our founding fathers once did. They didn't anticipate what everything would be like now and surely could have never known the struggles that are being made today to keep freedom with expanding opportunities against it. As Anatole France once said "All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another." And that is where I believe we must go.

How bout them apples?
I DID THIS ALL FOR YOU!

Polling

If you were Mitt Romney's campaign adviser, what would you recommend his campaign strategy be to give him the best chance to win the Presidency this fall.   Be sure to focus your recommendations on logical,realistic and achievable goals.

Firstly, he needs to connect to the lower class. He is WAY to rich to even pretend to care ( although he does wear jeans like I do ) so rather then risk looking insensitive and continuing acting like he is just another normal working man he should acknowledge that he is different and that he takes into account the struggles and hardships that many americans face nowadays even with the most minute of financial achievements.

Additionally he needs to reach out more to women. A lot more. This one will be a lot harder than the poor because he has already made an incidental stance on the subject. Earlier in his carrer he voted against a bill that would provide equal pay for women, this itself puts him in the red. Women want to believe that they have as much power as men and can achieve anything they want to so thats what he his to tell them. We all know women are statistically paid less, why? This is where Romney can gain point! He can turn the tables. Sure many women were fired this previous four years but thats not Obamas fault, thats just the market, businessmen. If he can prove that he is different than most businessmen (slim chance) then he can gain at least a few more votes from the normally democratic women.

Lastly he should aim for the younger generations. You know, act cool, hip, and totally radicle. But he has to do it with a persuasive and catchy jingle or slogan or something, because college student's minds are like play-dough and can be molded so easily. You make a few greenhouses, save a few animals, and get endorsed by Starbucks and you'll be golden! Personally he should aim towards the more private schools where the conservative parents send their kids so they cant be influenced by the twisted liberal professors that run ramped in the educational field.

Thats what he should do. Period

Graphic Analysis

1. Politicians make it easy to see the difference between parties and candidates. However, many politicians are more alike than they would like to admit. After studying the graphic where can you see three similarities between the two sides? Please provide evidence from the graphic.

1. Everyone on both sides is trying to do whats best in their belief for sustaining the American way of life. They all want everyone to have a job and for everyone to have a stable living. They want prosperity in the United States and for freedom to stand firm.

2. Both parties believe in freedom of religion and most of the constitution, some are even absolutists and ONLY follow the constitution. However we can see that everyone want to show their respect for the founding fathers and the intellectual decisions they made when setting the ground for our country. A majority on both sides worship.

3. Lastly both believe in motherly guidance and the support of the family for the growth of the future and the future of our nation. Both sides believe that they should grow under their family and that they will help with their moral and ethical guidance though their younger period of their life until they can begin to decide on their own as adults. In essence, learning the golden rule and the difference between right and wrong.

We are not so different
http://bb9.waukesha.k12.wi.us/bbcswebdav/pid-44952-dt-content-rid-79048_1/courses/West11_Gov-VanKeuren/political%20parties.jpg

Too many or Too Few Rights

Do we have too many rights, or to few?

When our founding fathers wrote the constitution and laid the groundwork for our country they intended to create the most free country in the entire world. The rights that we are privileged enough to have are those like free speech, religion,  and many among those. I personally believe that freedoms now in this era are being expanded, we now have the internet and are being constantly exposed to wrong doings, both by and not by the government. This allows us to analyze the rights that we already have and the rights that we should have while keeping certain restrictions on them to keep us safe at home. Anything involving freedom in personal life should be free, and anything impeding on someones life should be stopped. I believe in hands-off government as much as possible but that we should pull together to achieve public goals. So yes and no, rights are not defined by the rules, but how you use or not use them. That doesn't mean we should push them to their limits that means we need to 'upgrade' what we define as freedom as a nation.

Support your post by citing at least three specific cases discussed in our presentations.

1. The right to bear arms: in recent times people have been seen to take advantage of this greatly. Instead of using weapons to protect themselves and their family, people are threatening others during school or are even selling underage people weapons. In United States versus Miller, a man was caught smuggling weapons illegally and then selling them to violent gangs. This, although looked upon as a 'freedom' is never actually legal and therefore is more of a blip than anything else. No matter if we have that freedom or not, people will always end up with weapons one way or another. However, I do believe that this personal freedom is often put on a pedestal when it should be more highly regulated.

2. Illinois versus Gates. When a couple is found with over 250 pound of weed are they found guilty? No, not because they weren't committing a crime, but because the police did not have a warrant and it therefore was unconstitutional and the couple was released. Although this did break a belief that you were innocent until found guilty and that they needed probable cause before searching, it brought the question of rules over assumption even though they were right. Here we see the rights being abused by this couple but us as a country learning a great lesson. It is good we keep probable cause though because otherwise we all could be monitored and no one would ever consider that freedom.

3. Snyder versus Phelps, otherwise known as the Westboro Baptist Church was the case that allowed the legal protest of funerals. The 'church' outrightly protests dead people and pretty much everything you can think of. In the case they offended people just trying to mourn for their family and then the family took them to court. Since then many bills have been passed so that they can still protest but father than 500 feet away from the service and building. This personally is disgusting but is allowed under the freedoms our nation gives us. They should be allowed to do it but ethically should they? No.

Congress and the Budget Process

Why is it so difficult for politicians to craft a budget?

Because there are many factors that they have to keep in mind, even including things like gas and buttons.

This is why all people running for public offices normally don't have time to deal with problems like that on their own and they end up hiring someone to take care of their budget. Also there are many things that a politician may want to do when advertising for themselves but cannot afford to, even if it is for getting votes.

.

What factors must a member of Congress consider when prioritizing budgetary decisions?

They have to priorities the locations that they go to, the types of advertising they use, and even the clothes they wear. These alone can cost a lot more than believes since politicians can travel tens of miles to arrive at a place they wish to get votes from multiple times in a day! The advertising is probably the most important if s/he cannot reach the desired population. And clothes is pretty important too...

Please provide 3 specific reasons/scenarios/choices/decisions that you faced or feel are important.

Picking who to support, because if you're supporting someone, then you're letting someone else down. However staying within budget is very important although difficult, with addressing all the cuts, it is not responsible and will be looked down upon if you go negative running for office. Cutting the military was almost necessary if that wasn't one of your choices since we spend so much on it, same with a lot of health care bills.

Checks and Balances, Separation of Powers, Federalism and Limited Government

Which of the four principles of the Constitution is the most important?

Personally I believe that separation of powers is the most important principle of the Constitution.
Without it our government would be the most inefficiency and completely useless to the general masses.
Veto is the power the president has to completely deny a bill that has passed through the senate and been sent to him.
2/3 is the amount of the Senate needed to pass a bill. This isn't everyone ( that'd be crazy impossible to get everyone to agree on the same thing) so the 2/1 allows there to be an enough of a majority.
Review is the power that the Judicial branch has if they believe that a bill that has already passed is "unconstitutional". They can completely reset the bill and require it to start over.

The Declaration of Independence and The Preamble of the Constitution

The Declaration of Independence is exactly what it says it is, but the Constitution is not. In the Declaration of Independence the United States, states that the thirteen colonies is now separated from Great Britain. And in The Preamble to the Constitution the United States claims the rights and laws its own people will abide by in the newly free land. Although they are both, in a lot of ways, just lists, they are focused on different aspects of the freedom. One is the reasoning for why they're separating themselves and the other is that now that they're free they'll need some ground rules so it doesn't become an anarchy.

My definition of a Well Informed 21st Century Citizen

In our era of rapid technological advancement it is constantly a struggle to remain well informed. With all the diverse perspectives and ideas floating around social media hubs such as the television, radio, and Internet it is rather hard not to stay informed if you know where to look, however it is just as easy to become misinformed. A well informed 21st century citizen has to be able to adapt well to advancements and have reliable sources.  A 21st Century citizen can also use these sources to inform others and to help responsibly debate the many different arguments that today’s politics offer.

Yup. And for some reason or another I can't get rid of the black background behind the lettering...

Myself

My names Jacob Samuel Alba.
I'm 18 and i was born and raised in Wisconsin.
I have a 3.3 cumulative GPA and a 28 on the ACT.
I play the guitar and the piano and I also sing in masters.
I'm thinking about going into either Ophthalmology or some business marketing.
However i would much rather make my living with music in a band.
I like ranch on my pizza and pretty much everything else too.
I like V-necks and going to Goodwill.
Photography is a hobby of mine and in fact I have taken multiple peoples senior pictures.
I enjoy playing video games with friends.
My car is a piece of _______.
I tend to loose my keys and phone and wallet but end up finding them in obvious places.
I don't go to church.
And I hear I tend to over analyze situations.