WEEK 8: I found a blog site called Real Clear Politics…the name just floored me. I actually really like it because it has a combination of international, domestic, editorials, journalist articles- mixed in with op ed. pieces, letters to the editors or us regular people who submit blog posts. I found this article by Katha Pollit- and read one of her pieces because she is known for her wit. Her blog post is called, “This is what illegal abortion would look like.” She is darkly witty stating that illegal abortion would look like cat feses stained floors, next to 15 year old’s administering anesthesia…dark! I like how she writes about Dr. Gosnell’s practice in an uncensored way…sometime we need direct bluntness as a way to jolt our senses on a hot button issue we shouldn’t be numbed to. As such, she wittingly balances the dark features of illegal abortion, with Gosnell’s practices that are legal, shockingly writing that while it is not illegal to abort babies past 24 weeks- it is illegal to shit the throats of fetuses at any age.

http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show

One blog post I didn’t like was actually from the same political forum- by Caitlin Huey-Barnes titled… “Rubio Puts alot on the line.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/15/with_immigration_push_rubio_puts_a_lot_on_the_line.html

I didn’t like this piece because with a strong title I was expecting to be influenced by a strong opinion…but the only thing that came to mind was her writing only posed the facts of the immigration plan, and Rubio’s intentions. There was no fierce commentary, in my opinion. However, she does I good job in framing him through quotes of his shortcomings, she could have had a stronger voice behind this blog.

WEEK 9:

This editorial article is from the Denver Post and discusses the rights, and problems with medical MJ being sold. I noticed a few grammatical errors. There was a lack of parentheses or commas in some areas. As well this editorial talks very vaguely  and doesn’t explain itself in regards to “vertical integration of MJ into the industry.” It could be that editorial pieces rarely recieve editing…or that op ed. articles usually are rants much like blogs that may leave out full explanations of content.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_23007379/different-model-sale-recreational-marijuana

I read this piece from the New York TImes, because for the life of me I couldn’t figure out what the title “Cowboys and Eggheads” implied.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/keller-cowboys-and-eggheads.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

It discusses a recent book to be released about the CIA- its wins that apparently out weight the shortcomings of the Bureau. He writes that the CIA was unstoppable in assinating Osama Bin Ladin on a very iconic navy seal raid- however, this was only after the CIA and the Administration failed to work together to come up with a plan to stop the impending threat from Obama in the first place- no where in the article does it state- it took several decades, and two generations of Bush’s and a Clinton to successfully hunt him down. He also claims that many ‘cowboys’ in congress didnt grown up playing egghead- and so all of their policies are directed towards ground breaking espionage by the CIA- claiming the CIA depends on the clients that sit in the White House…Quite frankly, the article and the title do not correlate well together- its like insinuating the boys in congress like playing Russian roulette types games with espionage- with no expense to them. I think thats what I understood from this article.

WEEK 10: Part 1 & 2

1)  “Twitter is only suitable for superficial name calling and quips: it is not an adequate forum for real political debate or analysis.” Because quite frankly, Twitter is the no sleep tangible forum to which any aspect of the entire world is linked up into the global forum. It is suitable for political debates- because its standard is universal, and it has the ability to include many different actors from many aspects of opinions to join the political debate and discussion. The fact that I can go to a political conference, meeting of sorts- and live stream my own debate with people that are there and all over the world; at the same time that the debate/ discussion is going on during the political conference- it makes it the ideal candidate for political debates. The live factor is what enables hot off the press opinions, streaming- to add to the original debate, or political discussion going on. The twitter feed can be influenced in the moment, rather than retrospectively.

2) If I were to follow anyone on twitter fight club I would follow @texasinafrica for the brilliant usage of political references with a harry potter spin- makes politics more fun! But also because he was one of the winners- that resulted in the fight. @texasinafrica, she engaged thoroughly down to the last fight and engaged in the rounds more often than her opponents. I also think I like her because though she has strong political Texan roots, her political opinions were unwavering, witty, and universal. I enjoyed reading some of her feeds. She was able to push past Texan republican stereotypes.

Week 9:

In the article by Adam Przworski and Fernando Limongi, “Modernization: Theory and Facts,” poses the questions of what exactly is the catalyst factor that enables countries governments to fall- regime to rise, strengthen and then crash and burn? They allude, that economic stability and independence or dependence is the correlating factors that can cause political regime to rise and fall. Their evidence claims that democracies are determined through modernization. There are two correlating theories to the progress of democracy- 1 is the historical context and the prominent one is the modernization theory. Countries usually progress into democracies through modernization. However, the two correlating factors of what how a nation progresses into a democracy is the progress of social transformations and economic development.

“As Przeworski  observed, this deterministic emphasis made both approaches appear irrelevant when the issue of democratization appeared on the political agenda in the mid-1970s.”  

As such the emergence of democracy is not the bi-product of of economic development however, it is a product of political leaders progressing to or digressing from democracy theory the actors choice. Moreover, these scholars state that then the stage of development has no correlating factor to the country heading into democracy. Thus after democracy has been established economic development then shows the constraints it has on setting up programs and institutions effectively and efficiently within the nation. It is the survival of the democracy post initiation- that causes the notion of make it or break it- based of the economic situation. These scholars claim that, “growing economy with less than $1,000 per capita income than in a country with an income between $1,000 and $2,000 that declines economically. If they succeed in generating development, democracies can survive in even the poorest of nations.”

Week 10:

“The Capitalist Peace,” by Erik Gartzke, creates an awareness, that liberal democracies, may only show peace towards other liberal democracies- and hold hostile feeling towards other regime types or less liberal and more strict democratic nations. As such, he classifies this circumstance with liberal democracies that have wealthier political economies and democratic institutions such as free speech, freedom of the press, and free markets. And if these institutions correlate through different nations, then it is less likely that they will engage in military combat with one another. This is probably why America hasn’t attacked Canada…yet. Erik calls this “capitalist peace” where capitalist countries alike have a inter-state interest with one another and therefore refrain from war with one another. Erik significantly studies war, not through the eyes of democracy with is the norm and uniquely uses the framework to argue that it is capitalism rather than democracy that keeps the peace and refrains from war. If countries have capitalist interests, then war is more modernly refrained. However, one note would be that he should have compared deep historical capitalist countries, and compare it to the relationship of capitalism and peace in modern times. Conclusively, Erik states that “economic liberals have long seen in free markets and prosperity the potential to discourage war.” He claims that past scholar dealt with this subject to simplistically. “Democratization, paradoxically, implies increasing tensions among democracies. Free markets and development, in contrast, lead nations closer together, or at down grade historic territorial animosities.”

“policymakers believe that
peace can be had through regime change. If the imposition
of liberal politics offers a domestic paradox, at the inter-
national level coercing democracy is an extreme.” As such this implies that democracy may not be the chosen route of the future- and that political leaders are choosing other forms of regime change- however, if they have similar capitalist interests and intentions then policymakers argue that in the future there is a bigger scope for peace.

WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENT & ELECTIVE

I did read on everyone’s blog and post a few links on a couple blogs however I want to post  a couple more that I find interesting. One, I read Democracy now, when I have a spare moment and really enjoy the banter, and the reports that are posted on all international news reports, they have very good writers in stow.

http://www.democracynow.org/

Another is a post about some of the best new apps for smart phones, iphones and Ipads that I love! because the app store is sometimes a confusing jungle of application nightmares.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/appsblog/2013/mar/22/best-iphone-ipad-apps-petting-zoo-yogify

Thirdly, I know sushi places are now implementing brown rice as a healthy option, but I love this place on granville called Red Tuna (Korean owned) who make the best sushi by a non authentic place. They use black rice, and I got to say I am hooked. I love it! and it tastes really good. Here is an article claiming that black rice is the new super food. Oh and if you havent tried it, it looks more purple than black.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7964146/The-new-superfood-forbidden-black-rice.html

Elective:

My fiancee freaked me out today by showing me a picture of a massive crab- which was the bi-product of carbon pollution. Apparently, they get huge.”Crabs are bulking up on carbon pollution that pours out of power plants, factories and vehicles and settles in the oceans, turning the tough crustaceans into even more fearsome predators.” Higher levels of carbon in the ocean are causing oysters to grow slower, and their predators — such as blue crabs — to grow faster. In the next “100 years, ocean acidification could supersize blue crabs, which may then eat more oysters and other organisms and possibly throw the food chain of the nation’s largest estuary out of whack.” Should we be worried about our next dominant ocean predator…crabs?

http://mcalesternews.com/offbeatnews/x2055661479/Crabs-supersized-by-carbon-pollution

WEEK 2 ELECTIVE 

Elective: I never thought I”d see the day, when the Lakers reign, and the allusize “balloon” lakers fans have rallied in, has now been popped due to kobe’s injury. “But, finally, in the last lap of his most difficult season, bearing the burden of a franchise in chaos, Kobe Bryant has finally crumbled.” Its really quite sad that the Lakers season is essentially over. The problem is that Kobe is out and the lakers have relied on him to carry the franchise and carry the season, and now that he has crumbled the lakers need to do everything they can to keep Howard and to do their best in their training camp. “Another person who won’t be leaving now is Dwight Howard, as the Lakers must do everything to re-sign him, and probably will. There is no way Howard leaves town and nearly $30 million on the table, especially since he will now be the team leader.” Honestly, the hardest thing though that will be difficult to cope with the the bruised ego of the Lakers fans- and rightly so, with a franchise so flawless, with a leader so strong- losing Kobe will be the most difficult thing to digest for L.A.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/sports/la-sp-plaschke-lakers-20130413

WEEK 4 READING

Reading “Measurement and Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research  by Robert Adcock, and David Collier, for a second time, at the end of the semester allowed me to see the importance of making sound definitions of democracy, in order to follow suit with measurable components of democracy. The research has been relatively new for many developing democracies just recently implemented data recording centers of the nations data. Adcock and Collier spend the majority of their study discusses how as scholars, many invalid data, and research occurs because the data either doesn’t have a valid or reliable source- or the fundamentals in the background research didn’t account for things that would make the validity of the relationships in the measurements vary. As such, they stress the importance of defining definitions of concepts, qualitatively and quantitatively throughout the measure. As such, they progressively discuss the many problems scholars have made in carrying out their research questioning whether scholar accurately define their observations and operationalize it in a way that can be measured. Can scholars in studies accurately connect their broad theories and observations into reliable data? These scholars state that if we institute a methodological standard for the research it would be more valid from varying studies and scholars can use past methods that are reliable to further understandings of any given topic in political research.

The article I choose to polish is the one from week 11 “What Stops the Torture?” because quite frankly it was one of the readings I can honestly say I found interesting- because its more relatable that per capita income’s relationship on how happy people are…. This article was enjoyable for me.

I think that I could have discussed a bit more of the concepts, relying with evidence that Conrad and Moore go through in their article.

Here is the updated version of my post.

The article of Conrad, and Moore “What Stops the Torture?” is a significant analytical piece to determine the detriments of torture on individual states. In order to do so they use several different variables such as “Freedom of Expression,” “Veto rights” “Voice Freedom” and “Violent Dissent.” Using some of these variables to measure how entrenched a country’s violence is, how long of a history of violence and threats do they hold, partners with qualities of the government that allude to democratic features of their nation. These aspects rely on each other, in order for Conrad and Moore to see the relationship of how democratic a country is and how violent they are at the same time in order to determine how likely they will terminate torture. Measuring the likelihood these states will change their torture norms in the future. However, they start off by stating that the 93% of countries who use torture will continue torture- this is pretty obvious considering countries that use torture on prisoners and captives. It its very significant that they analyze governments reasons to use torture at an executive level but also at the level in which officials administer the torture. They also discuss that in some democracies even if at the executive level, torture is not appropriate sometimes it is difficult to control those in the jails and interrogation administering the torture if it is not being reported back to the officials. As such, they argue that some democracies create institutions to secure that torture isn’t used as a form of interrogation or punishment in jails. However, they determine through their data countries that present torture as a form of violence usually have an imminent threat. One of the variables they measure to determine the likelihood that torture is terminated is through a countries free press level of freedom, and popular suffrage. There is a positive relationship that exists for when countries exhibit higher levels of the variables of freedom coinciding with a decrease in the national violence it is more likely that these countries will terminate their torture allowances. The likelihood of a country having democratic institutions is expected to eventually or progressively stop their torture. However, they come to understand that torture- is normal state-wide, and is commonly used whatever the regime type, and secondly we as the public, as the press and as political leaders are unaware and less informed on the matter- perhaps because a country that is democratic will execute the torture off the countries mainland…or in a secluded area or in a high security jail…I immediately thought of Guantanamo Bay. The scholars overall claim that firstly, the way the problem will be solved if more scholars, politicians, and the general public acknowledge its happening and define it globally from country to country in order to figure out the probability of it becoming terminated within an international consensus. As such, they note it is important to see what kind of policies politicians make- and what incentives there are for politicians being pro-torture. And that one of the main hinderence for countries to continue torture- is that politicians ignore and rarely respect human rights. “The international movement to actively stop the use of torture by demanding institutional training, monitoring, and sanctioning programs is relatively new. International NGOs are working with national ones to strengthen the CAT and its more recent Optional Proto col (OPCAT). OPCAT is interesting because it requires state parties to create independent domestic institutions that have training, monitoring and sanctioning authority,” of the torture. (747)

What I revised in the beginning is what kind of variables were used, and how that was significantly applicable to the variable they were measuring.

As such, these variables should be able to tell through the evidence of how attached a country is to their torturing, and if so- could those countries be able to terminate if a) more communication of anti-torture policies were implemented from the executive to state level of officials. b) the the more democratic institutions a country has- could prove to Conrad and Moore that torture can be progressively terminated in a positive relationship of the more democratic a country is- the higher the likelihood their torture policies will diminish.

As previously stated, I very  much like this piece because little has been discussed, and studied on this direction of topics before. We know that torture exists and the patterns it holds in different regions, however, no one (to my understanding) has studied the effects of a country’s democratic institutions on the likelihood of torture becoming terminated. Its difficult when in this world we have nations like the US that spearhead democratic institutions, and yet the majority of people are unaware of the torture they carry out. This article sheds lights on how democracies use torture, because threats are prevalent in the country’s conscious.

Reading:

I think that the article of Conrad, and Moore “What Stops the Torture?” is a significant analytical piece in measuring to determine the detriments of torture on individual states; whilst measuring the likelihood these states will change their torture norms in the future. However, they start off by stating that the 93% of countries who use torture will continue torture- this is pretty obvious considering countries that use torture on prisoners and captives. It its very significant that they analyze governments reasons to use torture at an executive level but also at the level in which officials administer the torture. They also discuss that in some democracies even if at the executive level, torture is not appropriate sometimes it is difficult to control those in the jails and interrogation administering the torture if it is not being reported back to the officials. As such, they argue that some democracies create institutions to secure that torture isn’t used as a form of interrogation or punishment in jails. However, they determine through their data countries that present torture as a form of violence usually have an imminent threat. One of the variables they measure to determine the likelihood that torture is terminated is through a countries free press level of freedom, and popular suffrage. There is a positive relationship that exists for when countries exhibit higher levels of the variables of freedom coinciding with a decrease in the national violence it is more likely that these countries will terminate their torture allowances. The likelihood of a country having democratic institutions is expected to eventually or progressively stop their torture. However, they come to understand that torture- is normal state-wide, and is commonly used whatever the regime type, and secondly we as the public, as the press and as political leaders are unaware and less informed on the matter- perhaps because a country that is democratic will execute the torture off the countries mainland…or in a secluded area or in a high security jail…I immediately thought of Guantanamo Bay. The scholars overall claim that firstly, the way the problem will be solved if more scholars, politicians, and the general public acknowledge its happening and define it globally from country to country in order to figure out the probability of it becoming terminated within an international consensus.

I think that to date, (I have a few leftover catch up blogs I need to post up) the most interesting assignment we did was week 7 where we had to explain democracy to our stuffy buggered aunt. I have been in this situation a many a times, and always wanted to prove myself and impressive my intellectual superiors. This assignment was real, and it took the conceptual elements we have been studying- the principals and the theories and place it in real life value and importance- which is quite frankly what this course has been teaching us to do. To visualize democracy in all forms, and shapes in the world, operationalize our conceptual knowledge and tell our aunt bitsy what democracy truly is and  also how democracy exists in society. I also, think it was my best post because I received a pretty approving comment, and question following my post. As such, I was able to literally take my knowledge and apply it accordingly and I think this was the most beneficial exercise to round out my knowledge and create an situation where my ability to verbalize what democracy is and how it is measured.

The most interesting post I read was sort of along the same line- It was Sammy’s post on the percentages and rates of celebrity marriages and divorces. It was very interesting, because it helped me understand the measures of democracy were have been reading, and applied it in a real world situation, contributing to my guilty pleasure of celebrity gossip.  It was well researched, and her comparative percentages between celebrity divorce rates, and marriages while implying that based on the research she read- some couples should still be married based on the data- rather then being divorced. In lieu of this discovery in the data she asked us why the data presented itself this way…Sammy operationalized the data very thoroughly.

Today in BBC I was shocked to be informed that seats in airplanes are going to get smaller…It is honestly unbelievable that the someone sitting in their corner office at Boeing decided to play a psychological test on travelers to see how small the seats will be before people crack. The reason? obesity is increasing (ironically the aviation analyst was rather large himself) The obesity rate has gotten so out of control that currently if an individual is large they have to pay extra for seat room… however now, they are deeming seats on airplanes, for those that exceed a threshold weight, and other seats will be made smaller to accommodation larger seats for larger people. I know that a social segregation and stigma of obese people against fat people has occurred but this is truly a new form of discrimination and segregation. How humiliating will it be for an individual whom Boeing has deemed obese to come up to a flight attendant for them to say that they’re sorry but there are some large seats reserved for their stature. There always has to be some sort of segregation in cultures eh? Black people have to sit at the back of the bus, or have segregated bars, but now there is literally discrimination and segregation of obese individuals in the public setting. I honestly think it is just as bad as racial prejudice. The aviation analyst says its good news- yay? People now have to pay more for weighing more and on top of that bring a humiliating awareness to their larger frame…Its already an uncomfortable experience with the little room airlines has so graciously given us in the first place. The public had already rebelled… and yet they airbuses and airlines are implementing this policy anyways. Thus, they deny us the right to take anything more than a mL on board, they took away of snacks of peanuts on non international flights, we have to pay for blankets, a soggy sandwich, and now they are giving average sized people less room- and humiliating the larger people with extra fees and segregated seats? The telegraph calls these people, “the fat people” and are pattern, the direction in which future trends of demography can be seen to include. Analytically, this is apparently supposed to raise awareness of obesity and public health- but having elements of our society progress into an age where things are segregated by weight rather than by person- is not an appropriate and sensitive way to include the  globes struggling obesity problem. Moreover, despite the 80% objection approval of the population for the new seat policy, the airlines are implementing it anyways. Is anyone troubled by the direction in which society is being categorized and treated- its almost as though it is reverting itself back into a stage of intolerance, only instead of racial intolerance and prejudice- society is prejudice of people who carry extra weight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22141525

“The US Senate have been crafting an immigration bill have agreed that foreigners who crossed the U.S. border illegally would be deported if they entered the United States after December 31, 2011.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-immigration-congressbre93b15v-20130412,0,1315051.story

“People need to have been in the country long enough to have put down some roots. If you just got here and are illegal, then you can’t stay,” a congressional aide said. “The last time U.S. immigration laws were extensively rewritten was in 1986 and those policies have been blamed for allowing millions of people to enter and live in the country illegally, while also resulting in shortages of high-skilled workers from abroad, as well as some low-skilled wage-earners.” At the same time this new bill is planning to inadvertently to up security along the mexican border. But overall, besides for kicking new illegals out and enhancing security along the border (which is a huge legislative problem in its own right already) the US are determining to gear the plan to solve the problem with the already existing illegals that have set down roots- the threat of deportation would be lifted for many who are living in the U.S. illegally. Within 13 years of enactment, those immigrants could begin securing U.S. citizenship.

Gering, et. al. measures again, democracy functioning based on the level in which a citizen is happy. I really don’t see the functionality in feeling thermometer based on democracy. Feeling of happiness could easily change in different stages of democratic processes,during transition, or election periods. As such, peoples happiness could vary depending on the type of democracy varying from country to country or the time period in which a democracy had been implemented, all these are factors that can change the measure happiness based on democracy. Gering et. al. factors in the time period variable,  as well as the entrenched “historical factor between democracy and development is as a time-dependent, historical phenomenon.” Based on their time series measurements they argue that a causal relationship between the dependent and independent variable exists and has a notable relationship as long as their is a long set history of democracy stable within the country. The measurement doesn’t attest to democracies that have recently transitioned etc.

The Regression tests indicate that a stock measure of democracy is associated with improved human development. Moreover, the construction of this variable may also make it less vulnerable to some of the potential identification problems that affect regression tests using a ‘‘level’’ measure of democracy. However, Gering et.al. claims that their measurement results take on a new angle and a new point of view, I feel as though their stock indicator has been used to measure the causal relationship with other factors in articles we have previously read. The validity of the argument of the measure seems to come down to the stock value of democracy within a nation and its time period  which gives more value to countries that are democratically older- in terms of human development as a source of happiness among citizens.

For those of us in the Heath, Wellness and Democracy bunker…

I think its very challenging in the article “Is democracy good for the poor?” to solely challenge this theory by only looking at child and infant mortality…where are the other factors involved? As such, Democracy has little or no effect on child and infant mortality rates- and the direction, data and concepts Ross uses to get there is choppy. His conceptual challenge is nullified- where if he looked at % in which single parents (mother probably more likely  receivers of welfare, how much theses classified poor citizens have to spend on daycare- subsidized or not subsidized…we could then see how democracy is functionally working towards being good for the poor or not good for the poor based on something that can be directly causal of being good or bad for the poor- rather than child and infant mortality that can occur in the data for families just as frequently in the poor as for middle class, and richer people.

I think we should be careful in our analysis- for two of the articles depend on the world survey, and measuring of feeling thermometers  which this one measure the democracy functionally working for or against the poor based on a concept that doesnt really pan out in the end, in my opinion. AS such I think its helpful to find fundamental links with some of the articles that either conceptualize in the same way or take on similar datasets. As such, in my circumstance I spend alot of time arguing in my paper against the measure the article discusses.