DEMOCRACY FOR HONG KONG??
Original story...
http://news.msn.com/world/thousands-rally-in-hong-kong-as-democracy-campaign-heats-up?ocid=ansnews11
To begin-I know that this story isn't about American issues, but I feel like it's a good thing to mention because it puts our own government in perspective.
Years ago, when China regained control of Hong Kong from Britain, all of the parties involved made an agreement-Hong Kong could be Chinese again if the Chinese government allowed more democracy for the citizens of HK than they do for the rest of the Chinese people. Needless to say, the Communist Party of China really doesn't want to give a lot of freedom to HK, for fear that the desire for freedom will spread and loosen their hold on power. So, when the time to elect a new city leader came recently, the Chinese government tried to limit the candidate options to only those people approved by the Communist party. Because the citizens of HK don't consider this to be a democratic solution, they've been holding rallies, which are slowly spreading to other areas. Perhaps the Chinese government's efforts to keep control could result in even less control than they began with? Now that the rest of the world is paying attention, they need to be careful-if they give in too easily, other provinces in China may try to protest for their freedom. However, if they refuse to acknowledge the demands of the HK residents, Great Britain will not be happy at the violation of their agreement. Situations like this are what make me glad to be an American-even though sometimes I'm not happy with the way the government controls things, I at least have the power to voice my opinions without the threat of undue punishment.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
original story here:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-the-midterms-the-diversity-gap-in-the-house-will-be-wider-than-ever/
After our discussion in class yesterday, I went to FiveThirtyEight.com and I browsed the politics section, where I found an interesting article on the predicted outcomes of the midterm elections for the House. According to Silver, the GOP will still hold the House. (More Republics than Democrats will have seats.) However, a different statistic had the Democrats very excited-their caucus will be composed of more than 50% female and minority Representatives. I have a few opinions on why Republicans can't get any women elected, but since they are similar to Silver's, I invite you to read his original article, posted at the top. To the women in the class I ask- would you feel misrepresented as a member of the Republican party or as the citizen of a Republican-dominated state? (Just to keep it clear, I definitely would/do.) And to the men in the class-do you think it really makes a difference to have women in our government or do the men do a good job of representing both sexes? And to everyone-what about minorities? Are they well represented even if the Representatives don't have the same background, race, religion, or ethnicity?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-the-midterms-the-diversity-gap-in-the-house-will-be-wider-than-ever/
After our discussion in class yesterday, I went to FiveThirtyEight.com and I browsed the politics section, where I found an interesting article on the predicted outcomes of the midterm elections for the House. According to Silver, the GOP will still hold the House. (More Republics than Democrats will have seats.) However, a different statistic had the Democrats very excited-their caucus will be composed of more than 50% female and minority Representatives. I have a few opinions on why Republicans can't get any women elected, but since they are similar to Silver's, I invite you to read his original article, posted at the top. To the women in the class I ask- would you feel misrepresented as a member of the Republican party or as the citizen of a Republican-dominated state? (Just to keep it clear, I definitely would/do.) And to the men in the class-do you think it really makes a difference to have women in our government or do the men do a good job of representing both sexes? And to everyone-what about minorities? Are they well represented even if the Representatives don't have the same background, race, religion, or ethnicity?
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Just as a follow-up....you can read the story of our President deciding to get involved at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/obama-speech-authorise-air-strikes-against-isis-syria.
I suppose this answers my question! Don't get me wrong, I would not be happy if we went back to war. I do not necessarily support military actions, but I also don't support taking no action at all. Also, does anyone else find it an amazing coincidence that this was released the day before 9/11? Clever political move, dontcha think??
I suppose this answers my question! Don't get me wrong, I would not be happy if we went back to war. I do not necessarily support military actions, but I also don't support taking no action at all. Also, does anyone else find it an amazing coincidence that this was released the day before 9/11? Clever political move, dontcha think??
Friday, August 22, 2014
Is ISIS a bigger threat than we anticipated??
video here: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/chuck-hagel-isil-defense-james-foley-110241.html
After reading Cameron's post about the ISIS/James Foley situation, I looked into a bit myself and I found an interesting video of Chuck Hagel, saying that ISIL (he calls it ISIL, it's the same thing as ISIS) is beyond or as dangerous as any other terrorists group we've ever seen. He then goes on to say that the U.S. interference will remain limited, even though they will "eventually need to be defeated". We knew al-Qaeda was a huge threat and we didn't solve the problem early...which resulted in 9/11. Personally, I didn't appreciate 9/11 or the years of warfare that followed, and I don't think ANYONE wants to experience that again. So someone answer me this-if we know that they will continue to terrorize and murder other people(including Americans), why do we insist on staying out of it?
After reading Cameron's post about the ISIS/James Foley situation, I looked into a bit myself and I found an interesting video of Chuck Hagel, saying that ISIL (he calls it ISIL, it's the same thing as ISIS) is beyond or as dangerous as any other terrorists group we've ever seen. He then goes on to say that the U.S. interference will remain limited, even though they will "eventually need to be defeated". We knew al-Qaeda was a huge threat and we didn't solve the problem early...which resulted in 9/11. Personally, I didn't appreciate 9/11 or the years of warfare that followed, and I don't think ANYONE wants to experience that again. So someone answer me this-if we know that they will continue to terrorize and murder other people(including Americans), why do we insist on staying out of it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)