Links to the four textbook assignments that will appear on the exam:
Textbook Assignment 1
Textbook Assignment 2
Textbook Assignment 3
Textbook Assignment 4
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
The Situation in Darfur
Since 2003 the situation in Darfur has left at least 200,000 people dead, and 4 million people displaced, do you think that the international community has done enough to try to prevent this tragedy from occurring? personally i feel more intervention should happen, sanctions and more humanitarian effort. The International criminal court next week will be naming suspects for crimes against humanity. Since the president of Sudan lost his chief of the African union position, do you think that a coalition of UN and AU peacekeepers will happen? Within the time period of one month over 50,000 people have been asked to leave Sudan. Secretary General Ban is meeting with the president of Sudan to discuss the matter in hopes of relieving tension in Sudan. do you think there should be a military intervention in Sudans Darfur region?
Story found here
Story found here
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Blair announced withdrawal of British troops
Today Prime Minister announced a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. He wants to withdrawal 3,000 troops by the end of 2007. This would appear as bad news for the Bush administration, but Vice President Dick Cheney would disagree. Cheney views this as a positive sign, saying it was a sign of progress in Iraq. While I would love to believe that something good is happening over in Iraq, it is hard to believe these statements as President Bush implements an INCREASE of 21,000 troops to Iraq. What do you think of this topic?
Obama For President
The majority of people vote for a person by a type of party they are representing such as democratic or republican. Obama is attempting to run. do you think America will over look what party he is from and racial standards will take place?
Hilary and The War
Do you think by hilary clinton voting for the war, and then admitting indirectly it was a wrong decision makes america look bad?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Daylight Savings Time
Here is info on the changes in Daylight Savings Time that go into effect this year. The root of the change was to help conserve energy and the changes were part of the energy bill that passed a few years ago.
(This post was in response to a question in class).
(This post was in response to a question in class).
Kanye West Activity
The page on the class web site about the Kanye West activity has links to the transcript and the video.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
3 Cheers on the Pyongyang Deal? Maybe Not
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7947
"by Ted Galen Carpenter
Ted Galen Carpenter is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies and the co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea" (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2004).
Americans and Asians alike are expressing relief that an agreement on North Korea's nuclear program has emerged from the latest round of six-party talks. The agreement is certainly better than the alternatives of drift or confrontation. Nevertheless, in view of North Korea's track record, our applause should be muted...
...But the devil is in the details, and the agreement could easily break down over numerous issues in the coming months. Several matters remain disturbingly vague.
Although Pyongyang is obligated to account for the plutonium that it extracted from the Yongbyon reactor since 2002, the agreement apparently does not specify what happens to any nuclear weapons that North Korea already may have built.
That is not a trivial matter, given the evidence that Pyongyang may possess as many as 12 or 13 weapons. We certainly do not want a situation in which North Korea has merely agreed to shut down a nuclear program (and be rewarded handsomely for doing so) because it already has a credible arsenal...
...Another loose end is North Korea's alleged uranium enrichment program...
...Most sobering of all, we must remember that North Korea has broken every agreement it has ever signed on the nuclear issue."
I think this is a sign that North Korea, through the ability to abandon reason and behave as a selfish 4 year old child would, can hold a disproportionate amount of dominance within international relations, among the world's modern foreign policy standards. I think that years ago the notion of a weaker semi-rogue state clamoring for bigger countries to give it some oil as if it held the world hostage, would be met with hysterical laughter or violent interdiction. While it's assumed that the North Korean people would likely suffer far more than it's leaders if it were subject to severe embargoes, is there a way to prevent that from happening? Is there any other alternative (not including force), for the more powerful countries to exert their will upon the small troublemakers?
"by Ted Galen Carpenter
Ted Galen Carpenter is the vice president for defense and foreign policy studies and the co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea" (Palgrave/Macmillan, 2004).
Americans and Asians alike are expressing relief that an agreement on North Korea's nuclear program has emerged from the latest round of six-party talks. The agreement is certainly better than the alternatives of drift or confrontation. Nevertheless, in view of North Korea's track record, our applause should be muted...
...But the devil is in the details, and the agreement could easily break down over numerous issues in the coming months. Several matters remain disturbingly vague.
Although Pyongyang is obligated to account for the plutonium that it extracted from the Yongbyon reactor since 2002, the agreement apparently does not specify what happens to any nuclear weapons that North Korea already may have built.
That is not a trivial matter, given the evidence that Pyongyang may possess as many as 12 or 13 weapons. We certainly do not want a situation in which North Korea has merely agreed to shut down a nuclear program (and be rewarded handsomely for doing so) because it already has a credible arsenal...
...Another loose end is North Korea's alleged uranium enrichment program...
...Most sobering of all, we must remember that North Korea has broken every agreement it has ever signed on the nuclear issue."
I think this is a sign that North Korea, through the ability to abandon reason and behave as a selfish 4 year old child would, can hold a disproportionate amount of dominance within international relations, among the world's modern foreign policy standards. I think that years ago the notion of a weaker semi-rogue state clamoring for bigger countries to give it some oil as if it held the world hostage, would be met with hysterical laughter or violent interdiction. While it's assumed that the North Korean people would likely suffer far more than it's leaders if it were subject to severe embargoes, is there a way to prevent that from happening? Is there any other alternative (not including force), for the more powerful countries to exert their will upon the small troublemakers?
Friday, February 16, 2007
Textbook Assignment 4
The answers to these questions are in Chapters 7,8,9.
1. What is the law of anticipated reactions?
2. What agent of socialization usually has the strongest effect on most people?
3. Define public opinion.
4. Name three factors that influence public opinion?
* 5. In opinion polling, what are the two major ways to come up with a representative sample of the public?
* 6. What is the newest and fastest growing mass medium?
* 7. What is the bandwagon effect?
* 8. Generally, what kind of relationship has media had with government since the late 1960s?
1. What is the law of anticipated reactions?
2. What agent of socialization usually has the strongest effect on most people?
3. Define public opinion.
4. Name three factors that influence public opinion?
* 5. In opinion polling, what are the two major ways to come up with a representative sample of the public?
* 6. What is the newest and fastest growing mass medium?
* 7. What is the bandwagon effect?
* 8. Generally, what kind of relationship has media had with government since the late 1960s?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Wednesday Both Classes
You will have a quiz on Political Culture, Socialization and Public Opinion.
Bring your textbook, you will need it.
Bring your textbook, you will need it.
Monday, February 12, 2007
President Bush & His Administration- Iraq- Iran
President Bush and his administration were so quick to invade Iraq when american troops were in Afghanistan because of "The Invisible Weapons of Mass Destruction." President Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, spoke with Diane Sawyer this morning and said, "The U.S. needs to leave Iraq and that if Iran is attacked to U.S. will be attacked." Diane Sawyer asked Iran's president in about seven or eight ways, " Do you supply the Shites with weapons to kill americans and other from Iraq." Each time he avoided the question and simply stated that, "americans need to leave Iraq." The U.S. has proof that Iran is supplying the Shites with weapons. Bush & his administration have continued to say that there are no plans to attack Iran. I feel that if America doesn't handle President Ahmadinejad soon, American troops will just sit in Iraq idled for another three to four years. This situation also really makes me want to know what was Bush's motive in invading Iraq.
Kendrick Gerrard W.
Kendrick Gerrard W.
02-12-07 quizz
I know that we were suppose to have a quiz today, but class got cancled. Does that mean that the quizz is going to be given Wed.?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Monday Both Classes
You will have a quiz on Political Culture, Socialization and Public Opinion.
Bring your textbook, you will need it.
Bring your textbook, you will need it.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
GOP urges change in Afghan drug policy
"By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 7, 5:19 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Four House Republicans on Wednesday urged the Bush administration to rethink its policy on opium production in
Afghanistan, saying more needs to be done to counter the growing threat of narco-terrorism.
The lawmakers, in a letter to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the U.S. must end its dispute with Britain over opium eradication and design a uniform counternarcotics policy with the British and
NATO."
Ah, here it is, the GOP's regular reminder to me that I am not a Republican. This is not a case where they can successfully mix active foreign policy with their distaste for alternative lifestyles. At least not anytime soon. Though there is mention of "Promoting Afghan trade to provide alternatives to poppy farming" there needs to be years and years more of this before we can consider taking a harsh stance towards drugs in Afghanistan. Also we have to accept the possibility that the Afghani people will not choose to illegalize drugs, and eventually they'll have that choice given that we're promising them democracy. Forcing their government to do something even though the people voted against it would be the quickest way to bring this fledgling democracy crashing down- they could wind up seeing democracy as another tyranny, only one that also eradicates 60% of the GDP.
WASHINGTON - Four House Republicans on Wednesday urged the Bush administration to rethink its policy on opium production in
Afghanistan, saying more needs to be done to counter the growing threat of narco-terrorism.
The lawmakers, in a letter to Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the U.S. must end its dispute with Britain over opium eradication and design a uniform counternarcotics policy with the British and
NATO."
Ah, here it is, the GOP's regular reminder to me that I am not a Republican. This is not a case where they can successfully mix active foreign policy with their distaste for alternative lifestyles. At least not anytime soon. Though there is mention of "Promoting Afghan trade to provide alternatives to poppy farming" there needs to be years and years more of this before we can consider taking a harsh stance towards drugs in Afghanistan. Also we have to accept the possibility that the Afghani people will not choose to illegalize drugs, and eventually they'll have that choice given that we're promising them democracy. Forcing their government to do something even though the people voted against it would be the quickest way to bring this fledgling democracy crashing down- they could wind up seeing democracy as another tyranny, only one that also eradicates 60% of the GDP.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Google Reader
I've put directions on how to use the Google Reader on the Class Web Site.
Pay particular attention to the part about "Starred items," which are stories that I recommend you read in order to keep up on the most important current events and issues and to help you better understand class concepts.
Pay particular attention to the part about "Starred items," which are stories that I recommend you read in order to keep up on the most important current events and issues and to help you better understand class concepts.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Textbook Assignment 3
The answers to these questions are in Chapters 5 and 6.
1. Define referendum.
2. What is civil disobedience?
3. Who has the power in elite theory?
4. Who has the power in pluralist theory?
5. What theorist originally came up with conservatism?
6. What theorist came up with modern liberalism?
7. What theorist came up with socialism?
8. Define nationalism.
1. Define referendum.
2. What is civil disobedience?
3. Who has the power in elite theory?
4. Who has the power in pluralist theory?
5. What theorist originally came up with conservatism?
6. What theorist came up with modern liberalism?
7. What theorist came up with socialism?
8. Define nationalism.
All Wednesday Classes
It is very important that everyone attend class today as we will be going over the directions to the research paper and assignments.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Global Warming Consensus???
Global warming 'very likely' man-made-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_15
"The report being released Friday from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments — unanimously portrays the science of global warming as an existing and worsening threat, officials told The Associated Press.
"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said study co-author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria. Weaver said it is all based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus"
I was put off by another (the vast majority of articles I found on the subject sound just like this one) assertion of "consensus" about global warming, because I was under the impression global warming itself was even under debate, not just human involvement in it.
Climate chaos? Don't believe it-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
"The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
advertisement
This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect."
And since I'm sure someone's already being careful and questioning the author's motives...
"The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon."
Apocalypse cancelled-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=DAOV0ACR02WFDQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0
This is basically the reference and statistics page for the previous article.
"Case for action" climate scientists fear they've "oversold" global warming-
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
""Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public."
What I found suggests the UN and IPCC still have plenty more arguments to face within the scientific community, and the debate is far from over. With a disproportionately larger scope of input into the major media outlets, I feel it's wrong for one side to claim that the discussion is over and "trick" the public into thinking there simply isn't an opposing viewpoint. Personally, intuition leads me to put far more stock into an article or study that is honest, and lays all opposing viewpoints out on the table and debunks/discusses them. Why this is still rarely done among mainstream media? Is it just for a more entertaining story, or do members of the media sometimes have hidden agendas? Is there anything we can do to stop this (I don't think repealing the 1st amendment is in order or anything, but could media observational selection be successfully boycotted?)?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_15
"The report being released Friday from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments — unanimously portrays the science of global warming as an existing and worsening threat, officials told The Associated Press.
"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said study co-author Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria. Weaver said it is all based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus"
I was put off by another (the vast majority of articles I found on the subject sound just like this one) assertion of "consensus" about global warming, because I was under the impression global warming itself was even under debate, not just human involvement in it.
Climate chaos? Don't believe it-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
"The UN set up a transnational bureaucracy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The UK taxpayer unwittingly meets the entire cost of its scientific team, which, in 2001, produced the Third Assessment Report, a Bible-length document presenting apocalyptic conclusions well beyond previous reports.
advertisement
This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect."
And since I'm sure someone's already being careful and questioning the author's motives...
"The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon."
Apocalypse cancelled-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=DAOV0ACR02WFDQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0
This is basically the reference and statistics page for the previous article.
"Case for action" climate scientists fear they've "oversold" global warming-
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html
""Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public."
What I found suggests the UN and IPCC still have plenty more arguments to face within the scientific community, and the debate is far from over. With a disproportionately larger scope of input into the major media outlets, I feel it's wrong for one side to claim that the discussion is over and "trick" the public into thinking there simply isn't an opposing viewpoint. Personally, intuition leads me to put far more stock into an article or study that is honest, and lays all opposing viewpoints out on the table and debunks/discusses them. Why this is still rarely done among mainstream media? Is it just for a more entertaining story, or do members of the media sometimes have hidden agendas? Is there anything we can do to stop this (I don't think repealing the 1st amendment is in order or anything, but could media observational selection be successfully boycotted?)?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Friday 9 am class
Friday is the last day to do your office interview or submit your introduction letter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)