What is the relationship between citizens and the state? Post your contributing pieces and an explanation of the piece's relevance to the unit question. Also respond to at least one other post.
As you can see, the policy has provoked controversy from different sides of the political spectrum as well as those who have served in the military and those who have not. Anyway, I thought this was relatable to our political question in various ways. This policy provokes many different questions. First, it forces us as citizens to acknowledge whatever our stance may be toward gay people, one must then decide for themselves if they think it’s fair for someone who is openly gay to serve in the military. Furthermore, is it fair for one person in the military to be able to talk about their family, children, loved one etc. when their roommate isn’t just because of how they were born? It’s a loaded question.
Anywho, this connects to this week’s question of, “What is the relationship between the citizen and the state?”, because what happens when the relationship is breached because of government policies and regulations? Even though this isn’t a matter of the state so much as of the country, it still relates in the same way. If a citizen wants to contribute to our state/country and isn’t allowed to because of what their love preference is, what kind of political system do we have? On the other hand, if those who are serving our country don’t feel comfortable and are then sacrificing their lives and others because of how they feel on such a controversial subject, is that fair to them?
After reading this article, I can truly agree that "actions speak louder than words" as House Minority Leader John Boehner stated. This article discusses not only the relationship between citizens and state, but also how the government is getting too involved in running our country, threatening the relationship. I agree in that the government is power hungry in trying to take over and promise they are going to do things while not following through. It is sad to admit this but taking a look at health care, do we really want to turn our best medical care system over to the federal government?
By trying to involve themselves in too much, the government ends up making too many promises that they can't keep. This frustrates many republicans who agree with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell who "want results, not rhetoric".
In response to Christens comment, I think that we are seeing the fight for equality that will eventually be won. Just like the Civil Rights Movement for African Americans and the Women's Rights Movement, the minorities fought for equality. African American's won the fight and so did women, what makes the fight for Gay’s any different? Any homosexual person can deny their sexual orientation and be admitted into the army. I feel that in the home of the free, it is discriminatory to allow only certain people to serve their country. As citizen's, it is their duty to uphold the equality they were guaranteed.
Regarding Kelsey’s post, I think the quote pulled from the article saying, “Actions speak louder than words” really relates to this unit because the government’s actions are what matters, not what they say. Americans want answers to the questions, and results to the issues. The citizen needs to know what is going on with the government because the government’s actions affect them. This article in particular, discusses how citizens want government’s help but they don’t want to be overwhelmed by it’s involvement. I agree that the government shouldn't be too involved, however I do believe they should be involved enough as to keep citizens informed on what government is doing. ~Gennavieve
This is a political cartoon that talks about the unfair fight between citizens and big corporations. I believe this fits into our section becuase it addresses the issue of big businesses running out country and taking the everyday citizens rights away, and soon American could turn into a corporatly owned country instead of a democracy.
I personally believe that Corporations should stay out of politics and I also believe that the right that was given to them to spen das much money on their chosen political candidate is wrong. I hope that someday that policy will be revoked, and big corporations will stay out of government's business. -Emily
In response to Emily's post, I believe that because Corporations have begun to have more of a say in politics, we have a greater responsibilty as citizens.
Instead of just listening to the media and what some of the favored/popular corporations are saying, it is our duty to research things for ourselves.
Furthermroe, even though citizens may be bombarded by marketing and other techniques used by corporations in politics, corporations don't get a vote, only citizens do. Even though I don't think corporations should be putting themselves into political situations, I don't think it's anything that is going to be detrimental to the way our government runs.
In response to Emily's post, i agree with Christen in saying that even as big corporations are funding political campaigns and what not, the corporations themselves do not choose alone who is being elected into office. The citizens have just as much say as they had before corporations were involved.
Marketing strategies that big businesses are bringing to the table, are simply evoking the need for people to be more educated about what they are voting on. Americans need to be aware of bias in the media and whatever else corporations are heading up. More than ever, with the contribution of new marketing strategies and the presence of large corporations, Americans need to do their own outside research on things that are happening in politics. They can no longer trust what the media is feeding them.
This is an article I found on sacbee.com about welfare and the plans for potentical governors Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner to cut the cost of it in order to save money and tighten rules and qualifications for welfare.
After reading this article, I realized that their plans to cut the budget for welfare would actually be very beneficial for the state. Whitman and Poizner talk about some ways they can cut the cost by: "eliminating aid to legal, non citizen immigrants who have lived in the country for less than 5 years", availaiblity for welfare would only be for two years rather than five, and that you must have a job to qualify. I like their ideas because the state could stop handing out money to people that are undeserving of "free money", especially if they don't even have a job. California is putting itself into so much debt and by providing a welfare program sure does have a lot to do with that our budget crisis. By only providing welfare checks to people that are U.S. citizens of five years, those that do their best to provide for their families but just cant keep up, and also only getting welfare checks for two years will push people to get better paying jobs or for some people to start working. However, I can imagine that there will be some disadvantages to this as well. Citizens will be frustrated by this welfare cut because some will now have to get a job, and 2 years might not be enough time for struggling families to better their jobs and how much money they earn. If this is to actually happen, I believe that there will be stronger ties between the middle/upper class citizens and the state because some of the welfare costs that would be freed up could go to schools and education and many areas that they care about. For the lower class these potential cuts could put them at a greater disadvantage and lower their views of the state by taking away money that a lot of them do need in order to provide adequately for their family. This could also be a great oppurtunity for people to start getting jobs rather than hording money from the government that could be supporting schools/education, and health care. Do you think the state should cut the cost that they give for welfare?
After reading this article, i realize that I have never put much thought into the the differences of the relationships between the citizens and the state now that we have our very first African-American president. The article I read addresses the concerns that African-Americans are having with Mr.Obama. They are publicly expressing irritation with Obama, who they feel has failed to create programs tailored specifically towards African-Americans. Many felt that is was his job to look out for his own race and put their issues on the front burner. Obama countered the many African-American concerns by saying, “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks. I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African-American community.” This is a powerful quote that strongly qualifies his position and outlook on race and how it effects his presidency.
Do you think that Obama is addressing the race issue in the correct manner? Do Caucasians expect the same racial preferences that African-Americans are demanding when there is a white president?
Here is a quote pulled from the novel I am reading called, Blink.
“We live in a world saturated with information. We have virtually unlimited amounts of data at our fingertips at all times, and we’re well versed in the arguments about the dangers of not knowing enough and not doing our homework. But what I have sensed is an enormous frustration with the unexpected costs of knowing too much, of being inundated with information. We have come to confuse information with understanding.”
I think this relates to our unit, Power and Politics because it discusses information, which ties into the whole idea of is it the State’s responsibility to inform the citizen? I know we discussed this a little bit in class, but I think this quote brings up a different side, knowing too much and not understanding it. Do you think that citizens know too much? Not enough? When should the line be drawn on how much information we are permitted to know? Information on bills seems essential, but do we need to know every detail of war? Or maybe we know plenty, but just don’t understand it? What do you guys think?
In response to Gennavieve’s post regarding how much information we should know, I think that it is essential for the American citizen to know as much information as they can about bills and politics. But she does bring up a good point about how much information we should know about war. I think that all the information we would ever want to know should be accessible, but it is your choice to inform yourself. I think it is clear that if you know information, then you should understand it equally as well. Also, if someone is willing to look up information that they want to know, then it is their responsibility to understand it as well.
In response to Gennavieve’s post, I think censorship and what a person should know is very interesting as well. I mean how well can a person process and understand information when it is constantly thrown at them. We have the media and Internet and TV and radio that all contribute to how much information a person has. And yes I agree that it has backfired because at first It was all about having the people know what is going on in the world and government so that they would be transparent but lately it has gone bad because of all the spam and viruses and overload of too much information
After watching this movie a few months ago and thinking about our topic of politics and how the citizen to related to government, I thought of the movie Idiocracy, because I believe that the citizen should be informed and knowledgeable about their government. The plot of the movie is that in half a millennium the people will become stupid. The main character was part of an experiment gone bad and wakes up in 2505 and he is the smartest person. The film is full of irony and satire about how our world will be dumber and dumber if we allow for the people to be lazy and give up everything to the government. It is an interesting and yes funny movie that shows how much the average citizen needs to start getting involved and stop being lazy. The following is a trailer of the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2OEgafELw
In response to Emily Mattevi's post on Obama concerning race, I feel his quote is a good response addressing the race issue. I'm sure there are many people out there who feel that since he is black, it will benefit those who are also black. This is a poor assumption. Obviously he is going to care to everyone's needs, no matter what their race is. Afterall, he is the President of the United States. He may be the first African American president that America has had, but he still has the same role as every other president. There are bigger concerns out there tha shoudld be considered; like whether he is backing up what he is promising the citizens.
I know this cartoon is a little old but I thought it related to our overall topic because it discusses the highly controversial issue of the war in Iraq. There is such a big argument over why we are at war and how much longer we will be there and this cartoon sarcastically makes it seem as if the individual doesnt have a voice in any aspect of the argument. By saying "I figure it's easier to find a war than a job these days" and having the other character wearing a cap and gown it makes it seem as if the one in the army uniform doesnt really have a choice. Instead of graduating and getting a job he is more likely to "find a war". The cartoonist is displaying his disapproval by satirizing the situation and using humor to display that disapproval by mocking the situation.
In response to Brittney's post on welfare, I would have to agree with the article. California is a welfare state and the amount we spend on people is absolutely ridiculous. I do agree that some families need that extra help to help them get by in their time of need and I fully agree with helping them but what I don't agree with is the extra money taxpayers are spending on welfare that goes towards people who sit at home all day and aren't trying to go out and find jobs. These are the people that are wasting taxpayers hard earned money.
I understand that some families are truly trying to find jobs and need the welfare money to pay bills but at least they are trying which in turn should entitle them to be eligible for welfare. The rules and regulations that are going to be set into place will help weed out those who are deserving of that extra money.
This is song by Jay Z called Minority Report: you can watch it on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVgYqRX3_XY and read the lyrics at http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jayz/minorityreport.html
This song is Jay-Z's response to the Hurricane Katrina. He believed that it was the governments job to protect and help the people after the hurricane, but that they didn't carry out their responsibility. Rather than do what they could to help the people by providing food, water, refuge, and just general support; the government did nothing but "fly by" and take some pictures. He also felt that he was somewhat powerless as an individual and that even his own donations did nothing because it was just more money that went to the government which was failing to help the poor and misplaced of the south.
In response to Gennavieve's post on government transparency, I agree with Rachael. If the government provides us with all the information, we, as citizens, cannot blame the government for the lack of information. However, it gets a little controversial when the media gets involved, because it tells you information from different viewpoints. So that leaves it to us, the citizens, to willingly take in the information we want to know, and to learn that information from the sources of our choice.
In response to Jesse's post, Jay Z is right in the fact that the government wasn't helping the situation so desperate of rescue by simply "doing fly-bys to take a couple of shots". As the citizen, Jay Z donated money, but was peeved by the way the government put the donation to use. In that situation, I wonder if it would be more beneficial had the citizen's job been to go New Orleans and help "hands-on" rather than donate money... or maybe donate supplies, considering we can't always trust our government with money.
In response to Emily Mattevi's post on Obama, I find it interesting that some African Americans thought that Obama would pass programs in order to help out their community. Obama makes a valid point in his response to them by saying that he can only pass things that will help everyone. When there is a white president, the caucasians don't assume that the president will tailor to their needs so why are some African Americans upset that he's acting just like every other president as far as race goes. If anything, whites are the ones who aren't treated completely fairly. We are less likely to get into universities unless we have some sort of different racial background, and many scholarships are only targeted to blacks, asians, or hispanics. However, if there were scholarships designed only for whites, or if caucasians were accepted into college before an african american, people can call on racisism and get the organization in legal trouble when they are the ones who are being racist in the first place.
Hey Guys, In response to Emily's post about the race issue surounding Obama, I can understand where black people are coming from when they are seeking to receive better treatment after finally being represented by one of their own. However, Obama's determination to stay colorblind in his actions and his words is the right decision. Our country in striving to sustain unmatched equality. Therefore practicing favoritism, white-ward or towards the blacks, it not upholding our countries promises and integrity. It is probably tempting for Obama to make things easier on the African Americans because generally things are tougher for them right now, but he is doing a great job staying neutral and our country will become better for that.
The political cartoon I used can be found at http://www.time.com/time/cartoonoftheweek/0,29489,1960637_2044034,00.html. It shows the groundhog coming out of its hole and screaming, not becuase it sees its shadow, but because it sees the newspaper that says, "$3.8 Trillion Budget." In the background are two men, talking about the incident. This cartoon is referring to Obama's 2011 spending budget, which is very controversial becuase it could either further increase the deficiet, or it could help decrease the deficiet with its effects, such as creating more jobs. The cartoonist is being satirical because it shows the groundhog freaking out, and the two men in the background are just watching. He wants to tell the public that Obama's budget is unneccesary and will probably lead to disaster.
The article I found in regards to our unit question expands on the disscusion of the press we had in class last Friday. It talks about how many journalists are dying due to the war and consequentially so are the stories they set out to tell of the war and reality over seas. This in turn limits our knowledge and highers the bias in what we are told because not as many people are able to share the truth. In this case the citizen is not able to get full insight to the relations of government and the activities of our foreign countries. Our communication is poor. And foreign countries know that which is why they are increasingly choosing to target jounalists. 56 killed in 2000 66 killed in 2008 110 killed in 2009
Check it out. Its a short interesting article with great facts. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/10/world.press.freedom/index.html?hpt=T2
Hi everyone. This is a link to the political cartoon I am using for my contribution. It is a cartoon that shows an illustration of a man in 1980 complaining about how the government is too controlling and he wants deregulation and there is another illustration that shows the same man in 2008 yelling for the government's help with bailouts. I believe that this is relevant to our theme because I believe citizens need to be more independent from government and be able to depend on their our intelligence and decision making rather than blaming it on them constantly. We see people complaining everyday about how the government isn't doing its job, but what are those people doing to improve the way government is. Of course there are many flaws in the government and we can all admit to that, but if we stop blaming each other and begin to finally work together, maybe something bigger and better can be accomplished.
In response to Gennavieve's post, I am reading the same book as her, Blink, and I completely agree with what it is saying. It is always great to be educated and be intelligent. Always. But what I think the author of Blink is trying to get across is that we as American's believe it is so important to know everything about everything and knowing all that will get us farther in life and help us much more with our decisions. But what we don't realize is that knowing less helps our unconscious make split second decisions faster and those decisions are very knowledgeable decisions. Knowing everything isnt always the best thing.
With the financial crisis going on in our country, many banks were going bankrupt and the federal government bailed many banks out of debt. Now, many of these banks that the federal government bailed out are giving huge bonuses to the bank executives, which is unfair to the tax payers. The tax payers are very against this and so is President Obama. In this political cartoon, it is showing how President Obama is not happy with this and he is willing to put up a fight, but the banks are so much bigger than President Obama that it is hard to stop the banks. I believe that this is also unfair because the banks that were bailed out should be more grateful, but once again greed overtakes and no one cares about anyone and they want to get all the money they can for themselves.
As I was browsing through songs on the internet trying to find one that applied to "the relationship between the citizen and the state" I came across this one by Steve Earle titled "Rich Man's War"
The song portrays three different stories, all about poor men and their experiences with war. All three of these men (Jimmy, Bobby, and Ali) are all faced to suffer fighting a rich man’s war. “When will we ever learn When will we ever see We stand up and take our turn And keep tellin’ ourselves we’re free” Earle reveals his anti-Iraq/anti-Bush attitude as he twists his story into one that is clearly warped as the government takes advantage of these “poor boys” and have them used as the pawns of the rich man’s game. Ultimately, Earle exposes his personal views of the relationship between the citizen and the state: dictatorial and sacrificial and ignorant to the lifestyles of these poor boys.
In response to Emily Mattevi's post about Obama and the race issue I think it's great that he has made it clear he does not intend to even out the number of hits African Americans have had as opposed to white people. But I do have an issue with why this is coming up. If the African Americans of today are still up in arms about how they are still mistreated. That makes me wonder if about half of the country is white and the other half African American, did Obama automatically get half the nations vote because the African Americans thought he would have some sort of "revenge" on the whites? I know this sounds kind of racist but it makes me wonder if Obama was elected into office for the wrong reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug This link above is a trailer to a movie I watched recently called, "Fight Club." It is about a mundane man who has insomnia searches for an outlet to realese his aggression. He meets a soap salesman by the name of Tyler Durden and they together form Fight Club. From this one Fight Club they start a franchise of them around the U.S. and soons turns into a anarchist global organization. At the end of the movie the audience is told that the two characters that started the club is actually the same person just a created split personality in Tyler Durden. This movie is relevant to our theme of the relationship between the citizen and the state because this movie shows that the individual can make a difference whether for good or bad. It shows that one person can make a difference no matter how small we may think we are. I believe this thought because we can all serve a purpose in our lives, the lives around us, our country and our world.
When thinking about the role of a citzen vs the state, the song "We Weren't Born to Follow" by Bon Jovi popped into my head. The lyrics can be found at http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/bon-jovi-lyrics/we-weren_t-born-to-follow-lyrics.html
At the beginning of the song they talk about how this country was founded by "hopeless and the hungry" as well as the "winds of change". They do this to remind listeners that this country came to be because of the brave people who stood up for their rights. The chorus is "We weren't born to follow Come on and get up off your knees When life is a bitter pill to swallow You gotta hold on to what you believe" What they are basically saying here is that you should not have to accept things as they are you should get up and stand up for what you believe in. I think this is completely true because too many people in this society complain and pout about the way things are instead of standing up to the state and doing something about it. Our country was founded by people who fought for their rights from Britian and they crafted this country so that the government should not have too much power. If something is not right it is the duty of the citizen to alert the government and fight for the change. -Emily Hentschke
I completely agree with Greg's post. One person really can make a difference and start a movement. A lot of people in our generation have too much self doubt and are too afraid to make a change. My belief is that sometimes those bold people can make big differences and you never know if that could be you unless you try. -Emily Hentschke
I found an article an article on Afaghanistan's governmental problems and how they treat women over there. The article title is "Who Will Save the Afghan Women?". The article discusses the idea Americans talk so much about the war and the Taliban group that we overlook the women and their enslavement. Their government is controlled by the Taliban and women leadership and freedom is being denied. The article is relevant to the relationship between the citizen and the state because it shows the injustice of other governments and encourages citizens to fight for these womens rights. When women have no rights becuase of a manipulative government the citizens need to rise together and fight for those women. As a citizen to humanity we have the obligation to fight other governments for the purity and rights of the world.
In response to Teagan's blog about the deaths of journalists in Iraq. It is terrible the innocent journalists who lose their lives trying to bring us the news which in turn frightens other journalists from coming. The worst part about the whole thing is how the other foreign countries are not starting to target more and more journalists. How can they do that to people who are not armed or fighting.
I believe that Jessica's post makes a very good point about the denied liberties of women in Afghanistan. It should be the government (states) responsibility to protect the liberties of the people who inhabit their nation and by denying women their freedoms (even if their country doesn't deem them important) is a tragic notion that should not be overlooked. While there are clearly other focuses of the United States dealings withing this problem ridden country, the rights of women should not be an issue that can simply be ignored until larger problems are taken care of. Equal treatment for all is a responsibility of states to give to citizens and the Afghanis shouldn't be permitted to unjustly treat it's inhabitants.
John Fogerty, member of Creedence Clearwater Revival, wrote “Fortunate Son” in 1969, during the Vietnam War. The song was inspired by people who were senator’s sons, or millionaire’s sons, etc, people with “connections” and could either afford to stay in a university longer or could avoid serving in the military by making a few payoffs. The song was made to criticize people with money who were cowards and avoided going to war. The song was sung in the perspective of a young lower-class man who could not avoid serving in the war even if he didn’t agree with the war. These events, including the advantage of student exemptions, were some of the factors that led to the removal of the draft in late 1969. So what is the relationship between the citizen and the state? It is the job of the citizen to make known the injustices of the government and politicians to the rest of the world, in this case a song. It is the state’s responsibility to uphold the values and rights of its people. As citizen’s we must keep the upper class in check, just like many artists and songwriter’s do today.
This is a link to a political cartoon that I think is relevant to the topic of the role of a citizen and government. In the cartoon, there is a group of people obviously unhappy with decisions made by the government. All the people are complaining, yet arnt doing anything about it. All the people look fat, lazy, and mad, and I think this cartoonist is pointing out that so many people today are upset with the government, and a lot of the decisions they are making, but no body actually takes it into their hands to do something about it, they just sit around and complain.
This article written by Democrat Jim Mannion is a political news piece about Evan Bayh, a successful congressman and senator since 1999 who recently announced his decision to not run for Senate seat in the upcoming election this year--even though he is the favored contender in this race and has never actually lost an election
Bayh stated earlier this week that his motivation for not running is based simply on the fact that he sees his efforts as futile and that he has become "disenchanted" with the happenings within Congress. While the Democrats are concerned about yet another loss of support (following the death of Kennedy and the decision of 5 other Democratic Congress men to not run as well)there is a far greater issue that seems to be facing the Senate in regard to the relationship between citizen and state.
As those willing to compromise and work together rationally (a quality that Bayh was known for) realize the helpless situation that our government is in with it's inability to compromise, is is going to become harder and harder for the state to uphold its duty to the inhabitants of this nation. It should be a cause of worry that those who support working together are deeming the situation helpless and abandoning their posts for is there is no one willing to work together to solve problem that we are faced with, there will be no new solutions.
It is a scary notion that the ability of our state to service its people is becoming more and more futile as respected candidates such as Bayh opt out of the Senate.
This is a song by John Lennon called "Gimme Some Truth." The title of the song is also the chorus and is repeated after Lennon insults politicians multiple times, for example he refers to Richard Nixon as Tricky Dicky. It is a protest song that summarized the frustration people were feeling in 1971 over political issues, most notably the Vietnam war.
In response to Jesse's post with the Jay Z song I think the song is very meaningful and brings up great points. The song came out 17 months after Katrina and it is sad how devastated the area still is today. I liked that the song gave a different side of the story than someone would hear on the news. It lived up to its name and spoke for the minority, while also helping to keep the Katrina recovery issue relevant in an easily distracted society.
in response to emily's post (the one about corporations)...
i dont think that it is that big of a deal that the corporations are able to advertise for or against political candidates. it is still the role of the individual to make the vote and decide political races. although they can put millions of dllars towards advertisements they still can not make a vote. it remains the individuals job to decide which candidate or side of an issue is better for the country from thier perspective regardless of the advertisements they see on TV or anywhere else.
it can be an issue having corporations giving large sums of money to political candidates because then the candidates could feel obligated to "returning" the favor once in office and looking out for the interests of that corporation rather than the interests of the individuals of the people who elected them into office. this would be bad because the government would be corrupted and protecting the corporation rather than the rights of the individuals which is its job.
hey guys! Ok, so the piece I found was a political cartoon by RJ Matson. It dates back to October 4, 2007. You can look at the piece by going to: "http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/New-Citizenship-Test.htm " I picked this piece because it made me wonder about the Bush Administration. By the time he left office, he had a 22% approval rating. If no one really liked how he was running things, then why didn't society put their foot down? Did we just expect that he was going to stop everything he was doing, just because society started complaining? We were all bark and no bite. People were not happy and did not approve of what Bush was trying to do, yet we stood there and let it happen. So now the question is, why didn't we do what as Americans we have the right to do, stand up for what we believe in? It seems like in class we all came to the somewhat same conclusion that the citizen needs to be aware of what the government is doing. But do you think that with the Bush administration that society just got lazy and stopped caring, or do you think that people were blinded to the truth of Bush's agenda? See you guys in school!
"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics." - President Barack Obama
Connecting to our current unit of the relationship between Individual and State, President Obama's statement juxtaposes the effect of active citizens in democracy and inactive citizens in democracy. He seems to be pointing to the fact that the role of the citizen is to keep the government in check, which ultimately leads to a successful and true democracy.
This is a political cartoon that I think relates to the topic. It shows a picture of the wolf and little red riding hood with the wolf in a communist general outfit holding a hammer and sickle. Out of his mouth is an arm that reads wall street and below the cartoon it reads why America what big government you have.
The Wolf swallowing wall street represents Obama's bailout of the banks which many were forced to take. The communist outfit represents what some people think that Obama is leading America towards communism. Little red riding hood represents the American people being overpowered by the government, almost like they are about to be eaten.
In response to Gabe's post I think that song is very significant because it gives voice to the disgruntled American people against a president that is forcing them take part in a war no one wants and is costing American lives. I think its kinda funny seeing as how Nixon later has to resign because of watergat. He wasn't that tricky.
I just looked up Keith's political cartoon and thought it was funny. Great satire of how US government has been empowered. I think that the most crippling deficit we struggle with today is leadership deficit-our politicians are too motivated by funding than virtue so they are afraid to make a stand or change the standard. The fact that a wall street arm is sticking out of the wolf's mouth is significant because our government and funding is overpowering those politicians that give the people a voice.
I looked up an article about the Taliban's resistance in Afghanistan. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575066953058959716.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird Alot of the essays/literature (if not all) that we've read in this unit talk about colonization and how its bad, etc. I know that because of 9-11 it's become America's "duty" to minimize the influence of terrorism so as to prevent further attacks. However, are we seeing both sides equally? The article talks in great detail about the military side of things but also touches on the relationship between the citizen and the state: "Coalition and Afghan officials redoubled their efforts to win over the town's population. Allied forces set up radio towers on either side of Marjah so they can explain in broadcasts what they are doing, and decry the evils of the Taliban." In this statement, the state is not appealing to the citizens' wants but instead trying to convince them of the validity of their actions by denouncing the Taliban. I know it's not exactly the same kind of subliminal messaging as in "On Seeing England For the First Time" but isn't this in some way a biased representation? Do the Afghan people want our prescence and military influence or is that what they're told to think?
In regard to Jessica's article, I agree to an extent. I'm a feminist and I'm all for liberation of women and equal right, but at the same time, do you think that America can just waltz in and change that? Even the article said in regards to saving the women, that "for the purpose of saving Afghan women from misogynists, religious extremists or old-fashioned sexists." I don't think we can go into Afghan and just make all the people change their religion, or change their ways that they lived for so long just because we think its wrong. Another thing to look at is, what is the worth of success if you don't participate in the fight? Would it really mean the same to the Afghan women if Americans got them the rights they desire. Sometimes the women need to stand up and cause the change themselves, and we can be there for back up, but I don't think that we can fight for them.
The recent ruling in China to imprison yet another individual who dared call for political reform is an additional blow to activist fighting for international norms of human rights. The Chinese states feels threatened by individuals who challenge state power and they chose to silence their dissidents by forcefully silencing their voices. How should we react to such flagrant persecution of these individuals in other countries who simply wish to peacefully express their political views?
In response to Jessica’s comments, The Los Angeles Times recently published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author and activist for women’s rights in Islamic societies. In this article, Ali makes a strong point regarding the critical and vital role of citizens to voice their opinions to insist on change where change is needed. “If the world does that, [women’s inequality] will become like the eradication of apartheid--people will insist that it’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and that’s when change happens.” There are islamic women around the world who are denied basic freedoms and rights that we now take for granted in our country. Of course every country has the right to determine how their citizens live but that should not keep the citizens of the world silent when they see injustice. “I’ll give you an example,” Ali continues, “The Sudanese woman who decided to wear trousers, and when the world rallied to her support, she didn’t get the lashes. It is this kind of unbending persistence.” Ali, currently living under death threats requiring 24 hour security, still finds the courage to use her words to influence governments around the world hoping that words and not only war can create change.
Hey everyone, here is a link to a website I found about 'redefining the relationship between citizen and state' (http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/08/redefining-relationship-between-citizen.html). The article states how when the President thinks a bill should become a law it's almost guaranteed to become one and how perversive this is and how it defines an 'ambitious President.' Is this really an abusive form of government when the power seems to be in the hands of the statists? (definition in the article).
In response to Alissa's comment, it actually reminds me of the satirical comic strip we analyzed in class a couple weeks ago and I think it's actually pretty accurate. As Americans we just don't seem to understand that if we want something to change we should take action for it and stop blaming the government for every little thing that goes wrong. Even if we don't think we have as much power as the government we are all people and can converse in a proper manner about things we want to be changed.
Hey Guys i got a song that con really help with this theme. "Uprising" by Muse, its really good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog thats the link to the sang, and the lyrics is here: http://www.metrolyrics.com/uprising-lyrics-muse.html
This song is a great reflection on what people must do to fight back with the government, and that the government is not doing what they were suppose to do. At one point in the beginning of the song it says that "endless red tape to keep the truth confined" That the only thing that the government does well is put up the red tape and blocking us from the truth. That they are keeping things hidden from us things that we have the right to know. "They will not force us They will stop degrading us They will not control us We will be victorious" Is stated again in the song showing that when we fight back and we dont let everyone that is higher up than us keep us down, regardless of how seventies this sounds about how "the mans wont keep us down" That is not my intention with this, My intention is just to show that sometimes its your job to fight back a little.
In response to Jesse's post I think that Hurricane Katrina help was a failure on the Government's part. I learned a lot about it in Gov/Econ and it turns out that the Government didn't help out in Katrina until nearly 5 days after the hurricane struck, and even then they didn't provide much help or care. I think Jay-Z's song is an accurate depiction of how government was running during Katrina and I really think it is a shame that the Government wasn't helping out their own people in a time of crisis and now they are doing everything they can to help Haiti even though they aren't part of the US. I think it is really disgraceful that US Government can't take care of it's own people.
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteSo I ran across an article from Fox News about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy.
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/27/mccain-says-mistake-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
As you can see, the policy has provoked controversy from different sides of the political spectrum as well as those who have served in the military and those who have not. Anyway, I thought this was relatable to our political question in various ways. This policy provokes many different questions. First, it forces us as citizens to acknowledge whatever our stance may be toward gay people, one must then decide for themselves if they think it’s fair for someone who is openly gay to serve in the military. Furthermore, is it fair for one person in the military to be able to talk about their family, children, loved one etc. when their roommate isn’t just because of how they were born? It’s a loaded question.
Anywho, this connects to this week’s question of, “What is the relationship between the citizen and the state?”, because what happens when the relationship is breached because of government policies and regulations? Even though this isn’t a matter of the state so much as of the country, it still relates in the same way. If a citizen wants to contribute to our state/country and isn’t allowed to because of what their love preference is, what kind of political system do we have? On the other hand, if those who are serving our country don’t feel comfortable and are then sacrificing their lives and others because of how they feel on such a controversial subject, is that fair to them?
Here's an article I found on MyNc.com News.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.mync.com/site/news/story/47449/republicans-say-nation-cant-afford-dem-policies/
After reading this article, I can truly agree that "actions speak louder than words" as House Minority Leader John Boehner stated. This article discusses not only the relationship between citizens and state, but also how the government is getting too involved in running our country, threatening the relationship. I agree in that the government is power hungry in trying to take over and promise they are going to do things while not following through. It is sad to admit this but taking a look at health care, do we really want to turn our best medical care system over to the federal government?
By trying to involve themselves in too much, the government ends up making too many promises that they can't keep. This frustrates many republicans who agree with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell who "want results, not rhetoric".
In response to Christens comment, I think that we are seeing the fight for equality that will eventually be won. Just like the Civil Rights Movement for African Americans and the Women's Rights Movement, the minorities fought for equality. African American's won the fight and so did women, what makes the fight for Gay’s any different? Any homosexual person can deny their sexual orientation and be admitted into the army. I feel that in the home of the free, it is discriminatory to allow only certain people to serve their country. As citizen's, it is their duty to uphold the equality they were guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Kelsey’s post, I think the quote pulled from the article saying, “Actions speak louder than words” really relates to this unit because the government’s actions are what matters, not what they say. Americans want answers to the questions, and results to the issues. The citizen needs to know what is going on with the government because the government’s actions affect them. This article in particular, discusses how citizens want government’s help but they don’t want to be overwhelmed by it’s involvement. I agree that the government shouldn't be too involved, however I do believe they should be involved enough as to keep citizens informed on what government is doing.
ReplyDelete~Gennavieve
http://politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/96584ea9-c459-4f76-9701-c5c605862d60.html
ReplyDeleteThis is a political cartoon that talks about the unfair fight between citizens and big corporations. I believe this fits into our section becuase it addresses the issue of big businesses running out country and taking the everyday citizens rights away, and soon American could turn into a corporatly owned country instead of a democracy.
I personally believe that Corporations should stay out of politics and I also believe that the right that was given to them to spen das much money on their chosen political candidate is wrong. I hope that someday that policy will be revoked, and big corporations will stay out of government's business.
-Emily
In response to Emily's post, I believe that because Corporations have begun to have more of a say in politics, we have a greater responsibilty as citizens.
ReplyDeleteInstead of just listening to the media and what some of the favored/popular corporations are saying, it is our duty to research things for ourselves.
Furthermroe, even though citizens may be bombarded by marketing and other techniques used by corporations in politics, corporations don't get a vote, only citizens do. Even though I don't think corporations should be putting themselves into political situations, I don't think it's anything that is going to be detrimental to the way our government runs.
In response to Emily's post, i agree with Christen in saying that even as big corporations are funding political campaigns and what not, the corporations themselves do not choose alone who is being elected into office. The citizens have just as much say as they had before corporations were involved.
ReplyDeleteMarketing strategies that big businesses are bringing to the table, are simply evoking the need for people to be more educated about what they are voting on. Americans need to be aware of bias in the media and whatever else corporations are heading up. More than ever, with the contribution of new marketing strategies and the presence of large corporations, Americans need to do their own outside research on things that are happening in politics. They can no longer trust what the media is feeding them.
-Emily Mattevi
This is an article I found on sacbee.com about welfare and the plans for potentical governors Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner to cut the cost of it in order to save money and tighten rules and qualifications for welfare.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2520490.html
After reading this article, I realized that their plans to cut the budget for welfare would actually be very beneficial for the state. Whitman and Poizner talk about some ways they can cut the cost by: "eliminating aid to legal, non citizen immigrants who have lived in the country for less than 5 years", availaiblity for welfare would only be for two years rather than five, and that you must have a job to qualify. I like their ideas because the state could stop handing out money to people that are undeserving of "free money", especially if they don't even have a job. California is putting itself into so much debt and by providing a welfare program sure does have a lot to do with that our budget crisis. By only providing welfare checks to people that are U.S. citizens of five years, those that do their best to provide for their families but just cant keep up, and also only getting welfare checks for two years will push people to get better paying jobs or for some people to start working. However, I can imagine that there will be some disadvantages to this as well. Citizens will be frustrated by this welfare cut because some will now have to get a job, and 2 years might not be enough time for struggling families to better their jobs and how much money they earn. If this is to actually happen, I believe that there will be stronger ties between the middle/upper class citizens and the state because some of the welfare costs that would be freed up could go to schools and education and many areas that they care about. For the lower class these potential cuts could put them at a greater disadvantage and lower their views of the state by taking away money that a lot of them do need in order to provide adequately for their family. This could also be a great oppurtunity for people to start getting jobs rather than hording money from the government that could be supporting schools/education, and health care.
Do you think the state should cut the cost that they give for welfare?
Here is an article I found in the New York Times; "For Obama, Nuance on Race That Invites Questions".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/politics/09race.html?hp
After reading this article, i realize that I have never put much thought into the the differences of the relationships between the citizens and the state now that we have our very first African-American president. The article I read addresses the concerns that African-Americans are having with Mr.Obama. They are publicly expressing irritation with Obama, who they feel has failed to create programs tailored specifically towards African-Americans. Many felt that is was his job to look out for his own race and put their issues on the front burner. Obama countered the many African-American concerns by saying, “I can’t pass laws that say I’m just helping black folks. I’m the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African-American community.” This is a powerful quote that strongly qualifies his position and outlook on race and how it effects his presidency.
Do you think that Obama is addressing the race issue in the correct manner? Do Caucasians expect the same racial preferences that African-Americans are demanding when there is a white president?
-Emily Mattevi
Here is a quote pulled from the novel I am reading called, Blink.
ReplyDelete“We live in a world saturated with information. We have virtually unlimited amounts of data at our fingertips at all times, and we’re well versed in the arguments about the dangers of not knowing enough and not doing our homework. But what I have sensed is an enormous frustration with the unexpected costs of knowing too much, of being inundated with information. We have come to confuse information with understanding.”
I think this relates to our unit, Power and Politics because it discusses information, which ties into the whole idea of is it the State’s responsibility to inform the citizen? I know we discussed this a little bit in class, but I think this quote brings up a different side, knowing too much and not understanding it. Do you think that citizens know too much? Not enough? When should the line be drawn on how much information we are permitted to know? Information on bills seems essential, but do we need to know every detail of war? Or maybe we know plenty, but just don’t understand it? What do you guys think?
~Gennavieve
In response to Gennavieve’s post regarding how much information we should know, I think that it is essential for the American citizen to know as much information as they can about bills and politics. But she does bring up a good point about how much information we should know about war. I think that all the information we would ever want to know should be accessible, but it is your choice to inform yourself. I think it is clear that if you know information, then you should understand it equally as well. Also, if someone is willing to look up information that they want to know, then it is their responsibility to understand it as well.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gennavieve’s post, I think censorship and what a person should know is very interesting as well. I mean how well can a person process and understand information when it is constantly thrown at them. We have the media and Internet and TV and radio that all contribute to how much information a person has. And yes I agree that it has backfired because at first It was all about having the people know what is going on in the world and government so that they would be transparent but lately it has gone bad because of all the spam and viruses and overload of too much information
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this movie a few months ago and thinking about our topic of politics and how the citizen to related to government, I thought of the movie Idiocracy, because I believe that the citizen should be informed and knowledgeable about their government. The plot of the movie is that in half a millennium the people will become stupid. The main character was part of an experiment gone bad and wakes up in 2505 and he is the smartest person. The film is full of irony and satire about how our world will be dumber and dumber if we allow for the people to be lazy and give up everything to the government. It is an interesting and yes funny movie that shows how much the average citizen needs to start getting involved and stop being lazy. The following is a trailer of the movie.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e2OEgafELw
In response to Emily Mattevi's post on Obama concerning race, I feel his quote is a good response addressing the race issue. I'm sure there are many people out there who feel that since he is black, it will benefit those who are also black. This is a poor assumption. Obviously he is going to care to everyone's needs, no matter what their race is. Afterall, he is the President of the United States. He may be the first African American president that America has had, but he still has the same role as every other president. There are bigger concerns out there tha shoudld be considered; like whether he is backing up what he is promising the citizens.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.countermilitary.org/PoliticalCartoons/militarycartoon.jpg
ReplyDeleteI know this cartoon is a little old but I thought it related to our overall topic because it discusses the highly controversial issue of the war in Iraq. There is such a big argument over why we are at war and how much longer we will be there and this cartoon sarcastically makes it seem as if the individual doesnt have a voice in any aspect of the argument. By saying "I figure it's easier to find a war than a job these days" and having the other character wearing a cap and gown it makes it seem as if the one in the army uniform doesnt really have a choice. Instead of graduating and getting a job he is more likely to "find a war". The cartoonist is displaying his disapproval by satirizing the situation and using humor to display that disapproval by mocking the situation.
In response to Brittney's post on welfare, I would have to agree with the article. California is a welfare state and the amount we spend on people is absolutely ridiculous. I do agree that some families need that extra help to help them get by in their time of need and I fully agree with helping them but what I don't agree with is the extra money taxpayers are spending on welfare that goes towards people who sit at home all day and aren't trying to go out and find jobs. These are the people that are wasting taxpayers hard earned money.
ReplyDeleteI understand that some families are truly trying to find jobs and need the welfare money to pay bills but at least they are trying which in turn should entitle them to be eligible for welfare. The rules and regulations that are going to be set into place will help weed out those who are deserving of that extra money.
This is song by Jay Z called Minority Report:
ReplyDeleteyou can watch it on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVgYqRX3_XY
and read the lyrics at http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jayz/minorityreport.html
This song is Jay-Z's response to the Hurricane Katrina. He believed that it was the governments job to protect and help the people after the hurricane, but that they didn't carry out their responsibility. Rather than do what they could to help the people by providing food, water, refuge, and just general support; the government did nothing but "fly by" and take some pictures. He also felt that he was somewhat powerless as an individual and that even his own donations did nothing because it was just more money that went to the government which was failing to help the poor and misplaced of the south.
In response to Gennavieve's post on government transparency, I agree with Rachael. If the government provides us with all the information, we, as citizens, cannot blame the government for the lack of information. However, it gets a little controversial when the media gets involved, because it tells you information from different viewpoints. So that leaves it to us, the citizens, to willingly take in the information we want to know, and to learn that information from the sources of our choice.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jesse's post, Jay Z is right in the fact that the government wasn't helping the situation so desperate of rescue by simply "doing fly-bys to take a couple of shots". As the citizen, Jay Z donated money, but was peeved by the way the government put the donation to use. In that situation, I wonder if it would be more beneficial had the citizen's job been to go New Orleans and help "hands-on" rather than donate money... or maybe donate supplies, considering we can't always trust our government with money.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily Mattevi's post on Obama, I find it interesting that some African Americans thought that Obama would pass programs in order to help out their community. Obama makes a valid point in his response to them by saying that he can only pass things that will help everyone. When there is a white president, the caucasians don't assume that the president will tailor to their needs so why are some African Americans upset that he's acting just like every other president as far as race goes. If anything, whites are the ones who aren't treated completely fairly. We are less likely to get into universities unless we have some sort of different racial background, and many scholarships are only targeted to blacks, asians, or hispanics. However, if there were scholarships designed only for whites, or if caucasians were accepted into college before an african american, people can call on racisism and get the organization in legal trouble when they are the ones who are being racist in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHey Guys,
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emily's post about the race issue surounding Obama, I can understand where black people are coming from when they are seeking to receive better treatment after finally being represented by one of their own. However, Obama's determination to stay colorblind in his actions and his words is the right decision. Our country in striving to sustain unmatched equality. Therefore practicing favoritism, white-ward or towards the blacks, it not upholding our countries promises and integrity. It is probably tempting for Obama to make things easier on the African Americans because generally things are tougher for them right now, but he is doing a great job staying neutral and our country will become better for that.
The political cartoon I used can be found at http://www.time.com/time/cartoonoftheweek/0,29489,1960637_2044034,00.html. It shows the groundhog coming out of its hole and screaming, not becuase it sees its shadow, but because it sees the newspaper that says, "$3.8 Trillion Budget." In the background are two men, talking about the incident. This cartoon is referring to Obama's 2011 spending budget, which is very controversial becuase it could either further increase the deficiet, or it could help decrease the deficiet with its effects, such as creating more jobs. The cartoonist is being satirical because it shows the groundhog freaking out, and the two men in the background are just watching. He wants to tell the public that Obama's budget is unneccesary and will probably lead to disaster.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found in regards to our unit question expands on the disscusion of the press we had in class last Friday. It talks about how many journalists are dying due to the war and consequentially so are the stories they set out to tell of the war and reality over seas. This in turn limits our knowledge and highers the bias in what we are told because not as many people are able to share the truth.
ReplyDeleteIn this case the citizen is not able to get full insight to the relations of government and the activities of our foreign countries. Our communication is poor. And foreign countries know that which is why they are increasingly choosing to target jounalists.
56 killed in 2000
66 killed in 2008
110 killed in 2009
Check it out. Its a short interesting article with great facts.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/02/10/world.press.freedom/index.html?hpt=T2
February 10, 2010 10:10 PM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/J/2/wall-street-deregulation.jpg
ReplyDeleteHi everyone. This is a link to the political cartoon I am using for my contribution. It is a cartoon that shows an illustration of a man in 1980 complaining about how the government is too controlling and he wants deregulation and there is another illustration that shows the same man in 2008 yelling for the government's help with bailouts. I believe that this is relevant to our theme because I believe citizens need to be more independent from government and be able to depend on their our intelligence and decision making rather than blaming it on them constantly. We see people complaining everyday about how the government isn't doing its job, but what are those people doing to improve the way government is. Of course there are many flaws in the government and we can all admit to that, but if we stop blaming each other and begin to finally work together, maybe something bigger and better can be accomplished.
Lacy Sohn
In response to Gennavieve's post, I am reading the same book as her, Blink, and I completely agree with what it is saying. It is always great to be educated and be intelligent. Always. But what I think the author of Blink is trying to get across is that we as American's believe it is so important to know everything about everything and knowing all that will get us farther in life and help us much more with our decisions. But what we don't realize is that knowing less helps our unconscious make split second decisions faster and those decisions are very knowledgeable decisions. Knowing everything isnt always the best thing.
ReplyDeleteLacy Sohn
http://cagle.com/working/100124/cagle00.gif
ReplyDeleteWith the financial crisis going on in our country, many banks were going bankrupt and the federal government bailed many banks out of debt. Now, many of these banks that the federal government bailed out are giving huge bonuses to the bank executives, which is unfair to the tax payers. The tax payers are very against this and so is President Obama. In this political cartoon, it is showing how President Obama is not happy with this and he is willing to put up a fight, but the banks are so much bigger than President Obama that it is hard to stop the banks. I believe that this is also unfair because the banks that were bailed out should be more grateful, but once again greed overtakes and no one cares about anyone and they want to get all the money they can for themselves.
As I was browsing through songs on the internet trying to find one that applied to "the relationship between the citizen and the state" I came across this one by Steve Earle titled "Rich Man's War"
ReplyDeletelyrics:
http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/earle-steve/rich-mans-war-13681.html
song:
http://www.playlist.com/searchbeta/tracks#rich%20man%27s%20war-%20steve%20earle
The song portrays three different stories, all about poor men and their experiences with war. All three of these men (Jimmy, Bobby, and Ali) are all faced to suffer fighting a rich man’s war.
“When will we ever learn
When will we ever see
We stand up and take our turn
And keep tellin’ ourselves we’re free”
Earle reveals his anti-Iraq/anti-Bush attitude as he twists his story into one that is clearly warped as the government takes advantage of these “poor boys” and have them used as the pawns of the rich man’s game. Ultimately, Earle exposes his personal views of the relationship between the citizen and the state: dictatorial and sacrificial and ignorant to the lifestyles of these poor boys.
In response to Emily Mattevi's post about Obama and the race issue I think it's great that he has made it clear he does not intend to even out the number of hits African Americans have had as opposed to white people. But I do have an issue with why this is coming up. If the African Americans of today are still up in arms about how they are still mistreated. That makes me wonder if about half of the country is white and the other half African American, did Obama automatically get half the nations vote because the African Americans thought he would have some sort of "revenge" on the whites? I know this sounds kind of racist but it makes me wonder if Obama was elected into office for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug
ReplyDeleteThis link above is a trailer to a movie I watched recently called, "Fight Club." It is about a mundane man who has insomnia searches for an outlet to realese his aggression. He meets a soap salesman by the name of Tyler Durden and they together form Fight Club. From this one Fight Club they start a franchise of them around the U.S. and soons turns into a anarchist global organization. At the end of the movie the audience is told that the two characters that started the club is actually the same person just a created split personality in Tyler Durden. This movie is relevant to our theme of the relationship between the citizen and the state because this movie shows that the individual can make a difference whether for good or bad. It shows that one person can make a difference no matter how small we may think we are. I believe this thought because we can all serve a purpose in our lives, the lives around us, our country and our world.
When thinking about the role of a citzen vs the state, the song "We Weren't Born to Follow" by Bon Jovi popped into my head. The lyrics can be found at http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/bon-jovi-lyrics/we-weren_t-born-to-follow-lyrics.html
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the song they talk about how this country was founded by "hopeless and the hungry" as well as the "winds of change". They do this to remind listeners that this country came to be because of the brave people who stood up for their rights. The chorus is
"We weren't born to follow
Come on and get up off your knees
When life is a bitter pill to swallow
You gotta hold on to what you believe"
What they are basically saying here is that you should not have to accept things as they are you should get up and stand up for what you believe in. I think this is completely true because too many people in this society complain and pout about the way things are instead of standing up to the state and doing something about it. Our country was founded by people who fought for their rights from Britian and they crafted this country so that the government should not have too much power. If something is not right it is the duty of the citizen to alert the government and fight for the change.
-Emily Hentschke
I completely agree with Greg's post. One person really can make a difference and start a movement. A lot of people in our generation have too much self doubt and are too afraid to make a change. My belief is that sometimes those bold people can make big differences and you never know if that could be you unless you try.
ReplyDelete-Emily Hentschke
I found an article an article on Afaghanistan's governmental problems and how they treat women over there. The article title is "Who Will Save the Afghan Women?". The article discusses the idea Americans talk so much about the war and the Taliban group that we overlook the women and their enslavement. Their government is controlled by the Taliban and women leadership and freedom is being denied. The article is relevant to the relationship between the citizen and the state because it shows the injustice of other governments and encourages citizens to fight for these womens rights. When women have no rights becuase of a manipulative government the citizens need to rise together and fight for those women. As a citizen to humanity we have the obligation to fight other governments for the purity and rights of the world.
ReplyDeletehttp//:www.politicsdaily.com
In response to Teagan's blog about the deaths of journalists in Iraq. It is terrible the innocent journalists who lose their lives trying to bring us the news which in turn frightens other journalists from coming. The worst part about the whole thing is how the other foreign countries are not starting to target more and more journalists. How can they do that to people who are not armed or fighting.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jessica's post makes a very good point about the denied liberties of women in Afghanistan. It should be the government (states) responsibility to protect the liberties of the people who inhabit their nation and by denying women their freedoms (even if their country doesn't deem them important) is a tragic notion that should not be overlooked. While there are clearly other focuses of the United States dealings withing this problem ridden country, the rights of women should not be an issue that can simply be ignored until larger problems are taken care of. Equal treatment for all is a responsibility of states to give to citizens and the Afghanis shouldn't be permitted to unjustly treat it's inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteJohn Fogerty, member of Creedence Clearwater Revival, wrote “Fortunate Son” in 1969, during the Vietnam War. The song was inspired by people who were senator’s sons, or millionaire’s sons, etc, people with “connections” and could either afford to stay in a university longer or could avoid serving in the military by making a few payoffs. The song was made to criticize people with money who were cowards and avoided going to war. The song was sung in the perspective of a young lower-class man who could not avoid serving in the war even if he didn’t agree with the war. These events, including the advantage of student exemptions, were some of the factors that led to the removal of the draft in late 1969. So what is the relationship between the citizen and the state? It is the job of the citizen to make known the injustices of the government and politicians to the rest of the world, in this case a song. It is the state’s responsibility to uphold the values and rights of its people. As citizen’s we must keep the upper class in check, just like many artists and songwriter’s do today.
ReplyDeleteyoutube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I
Lryics: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john+fogerty/fortunate+son_20200607.html
http://www.uclick.com/client/nyt/tt/
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to a political cartoon that I think is relevant to the topic of the role of a citizen and government. In the cartoon, there is a group of people obviously unhappy with decisions made by the government. All the people are complaining, yet arnt doing anything about it. All the people look fat, lazy, and mad, and I think this cartoonist is pointing out that so many people today are upset with the government, and a lot of the decisions they are making, but no body actually takes it into their hands to do something about it, they just sit around and complain.
This is the link to an article posted on Yahoo News:
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100215/pl_afp/uspoliticsbayh
This article written by Democrat Jim Mannion is a political news piece about Evan Bayh, a successful congressman and senator since 1999 who recently announced his decision to not run for Senate seat in the upcoming election this year--even though he is the favored contender in this race and has never actually lost an election
Bayh stated earlier this week that his motivation for not running is based simply on the fact that he sees his efforts as futile and that he has become "disenchanted" with the happenings within Congress. While the Democrats are concerned about yet another loss of support (following the death of Kennedy and the decision of 5 other Democratic Congress men to not run as well)there is a far greater issue that seems to be facing the Senate in regard to the relationship between citizen and state.
As those willing to compromise and work together rationally (a quality that Bayh was known for) realize the helpless situation that our government is in with it's inability to compromise, is is going to become harder and harder for the state to uphold its duty to the inhabitants of this nation. It should be a cause of worry that those who support working together are deeming the situation helpless and abandoning their posts for is there is no one willing to work together to solve problem that we are faced with, there will be no new solutions.
It is a scary notion that the ability of our state to service its people is becoming more and more futile as respected candidates such as Bayh opt out of the Senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn85BeeiwZo
ReplyDeleteThis is a song by John Lennon called "Gimme Some Truth." The title of the song is also the chorus and is repeated after Lennon insults politicians multiple times, for example he refers to Richard Nixon as Tricky Dicky. It is a protest song that summarized the frustration people were feeling in 1971 over political issues, most notably the Vietnam war.
In response to Jesse's post with the Jay Z song I think the song is very meaningful and brings up great points. The song came out 17 months after Katrina and it is sad how devastated the area still is today. I liked that the song gave a different side of the story than someone would hear on the news. It lived up to its name and spoke for the minority, while also helping to keep the Katrina recovery issue relevant in an easily distracted society.
ReplyDeletein response to emily's post (the one about corporations)...
ReplyDeletei dont think that it is that big of a deal that the corporations are able to advertise for or against political candidates. it is still the role of the individual to make the vote and decide political races. although they can put millions of dllars towards advertisements they still can not make a vote. it remains the individuals job to decide which candidate or side of an issue is better for the country from thier perspective regardless of the advertisements they see on TV or anywhere else.
it can be an issue having corporations giving large sums of money to political candidates because then the candidates could feel obligated to "returning" the favor once in office and looking out for the interests of that corporation rather than the interests of the individuals of the people who elected them into office. this would be bad because the government would be corrupted and protecting the corporation rather than the rights of the individuals which is its job.
hey guys! Ok, so the piece I found was a political cartoon by RJ Matson. It dates back to October 4, 2007. You can look at the piece by going to: "http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/New-Citizenship-Test.htm " I picked this piece because it made me wonder about the Bush Administration. By the time he left office, he had a 22% approval rating. If no one really liked how he was running things, then why didn't society put their foot down? Did we just expect that he was going to stop everything he was doing, just because society started complaining? We were all bark and no bite. People were not happy and did not approve of what Bush was trying to do, yet we stood there and let it happen. So now the question is, why didn't we do what as Americans we have the right to do, stand up for what we believe in? It seems like in class we all came to the somewhat same conclusion that the citizen needs to be aware of what the government is doing. But do you think that with the Bush administration that society just got lazy and stopped caring, or do you think that people were blinded to the truth of Bush's agenda? See you guys in school!
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
"I always believe that ultimately, if people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics." - President Barack Obama
ReplyDeleteConnecting to our current unit of the relationship between Individual and State, President Obama's statement juxtaposes the effect of active citizens in democracy and inactive citizens in democracy. He seems to be pointing to the fact that the role of the citizen is to keep the government in check, which ultimately leads to a successful and true democracy.
http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20What%20Big%20Government%20(600).jpg
ReplyDeleteThis is a political cartoon that I think relates to the topic. It shows a picture of the wolf and little red riding hood with the wolf in a communist general outfit holding a hammer and sickle. Out of his mouth is an arm that reads wall street and below the cartoon it reads why America what big government you have.
The Wolf swallowing wall street represents Obama's bailout of the banks which many were forced to take. The communist outfit represents what some people think that Obama is leading America towards communism. Little red riding hood represents the American people being overpowered by the government, almost like they are about to be eaten.
In response to Gabe's post I think that song is very significant because it gives voice to the disgruntled American people against a president that is forcing them take part in a war no one wants and is costing American lives. I think its kinda funny seeing as how Nixon later has to resign because of watergat. He wasn't that tricky.
ReplyDeleteI just looked up Keith's political cartoon and thought it was funny. Great satire of how US government has been empowered. I think that the most crippling deficit we struggle with today is leadership deficit-our politicians are too motivated by funding than virtue so they are afraid to make a stand or change the standard. The fact that a wall street arm is sticking out of the wolf's mouth is significant because our government and funding is overpowering those politicians that give the people a voice.
ReplyDeleteI looked up an article about the Taliban's resistance in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431404575066953058959716.html?mod=WSJ-hpp-MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird
Alot of the essays/literature (if not all) that we've read in this unit talk about colonization and how its bad, etc. I know that because of 9-11 it's become America's "duty" to minimize the influence of terrorism so as to prevent further attacks. However, are we seeing both sides equally? The article talks in great detail about the military side of things but also touches on the relationship between the citizen and the state: "Coalition and Afghan officials redoubled their efforts to win over the town's population. Allied forces set up radio towers on either side of Marjah so they can explain in broadcasts what they are doing, and decry the evils of the Taliban." In this statement, the state is not appealing to the citizens' wants but instead trying to convince them of the validity of their actions by denouncing the Taliban. I know it's not exactly the same kind of subliminal messaging as in "On Seeing England For the First Time" but isn't this in some way a biased representation? Do the Afghan people want our prescence and military influence or is that what they're told to think?
In regard to Jessica's article, I agree to an extent. I'm a feminist and I'm all for liberation of women and equal right, but at the same time, do you think that America can just waltz in and change that? Even the article said in regards to saving the women, that "for the purpose of saving Afghan women from misogynists, religious extremists or old-fashioned sexists." I don't think we can go into Afghan and just make all the people change their religion, or change their ways that they lived for so long just because we think its wrong. Another thing to look at is, what is the worth of success if you don't participate in the fight? Would it really mean the same to the Afghan women if Americans got them the rights they desire. Sometimes the women need to stand up and cause the change themselves, and we can be there for back up, but I don't think that we can fight for them.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Dillier
The recent ruling in China to imprison yet another individual who dared call for political reform is an additional blow to activist fighting for international norms of human rights. The Chinese states feels threatened by individuals who challenge state power and they chose to silence their dissidents by forcefully silencing their voices. How should we react to such flagrant persecution of these individuals in other countries who simply wish to peacefully express their political views?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104491.html?wpisrc=nl_headline
Anne-Elise
In response to Jessica’s comments, The Los Angeles Times recently published an interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author and activist for women’s rights in Islamic societies. In this article, Ali makes a strong point regarding the critical and vital role of citizens to voice their opinions to insist on change where change is needed. “If the world does that, [women’s inequality] will become like the eradication of apartheid--people will insist that it’s wrong, it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and that’s when change happens.” There are islamic women around the world who are denied basic freedoms and rights that we now take for granted in our country. Of course every country has the right to determine how their citizens live but that should not keep the citizens of the world silent when they see injustice. “I’ll give you an example,” Ali continues, “The Sudanese woman who decided to wear trousers, and when the world rallied to her support, she didn’t get the lashes. It is this kind of unbending persistence.” Ali, currently living under death threats requiring 24 hour security, still finds the courage to use her words to influence governments around the world hoping that words and not only war can create change.
ReplyDeleteAnne-Elise
Hey everyone, here is a link to a website I found about 'redefining the relationship between citizen and state' (http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2009/08/redefining-relationship-between-citizen.html). The article states how when the President thinks a bill should become a law it's almost guaranteed to become one and how perversive this is and how it defines an 'ambitious President.' Is this really an abusive form of government when the power seems to be in the hands of the statists? (definition in the article).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alissa's comment, it actually reminds me of the satirical comic strip we analyzed in class a couple weeks ago and I think it's actually pretty accurate. As Americans we just don't seem to understand that if we want something to change we should take action for it and stop blaming the government for every little thing that goes wrong. Even if we don't think we have as much power as the government we are all people and can converse in a proper manner about things we want to be changed.
ReplyDeleteHey Guys i got a song that con really help with this theme. "Uprising" by Muse, its really good.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog thats the link to the sang, and the lyrics is here: http://www.metrolyrics.com/uprising-lyrics-muse.html
This song is a great reflection on what people must do to fight back with the government, and that the government is not doing what they were suppose to do. At one point in the beginning of the song it says that "endless red tape to keep the truth confined" That the only thing that the government does well is put up the red tape and blocking us from the truth. That they are keeping things hidden from us things that we have the right to know. "They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious" Is stated again in the song showing that when we fight back and we dont let everyone that is higher up than us keep us down, regardless of how seventies this sounds about how "the mans wont keep us down" That is not my intention with this, My intention is just to show that sometimes its your job to fight back a little.
In response to Jesse's post I think that Hurricane Katrina help was a failure on the Government's part. I learned a lot about it in Gov/Econ and it turns out that the Government didn't help out in Katrina until nearly 5 days after the hurricane struck, and even then they didn't provide much help or care. I think Jay-Z's song is an accurate depiction of how government was running during Katrina and I really think it is a shame that the Government wasn't helping out their own people in a time of crisis and now they are doing everything they can to help Haiti even though they aren't part of the US. I think it is really disgraceful that US Government can't take care of it's own people.
ReplyDelete