Net Neutrality

     Net Neutrality is "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source...". In a more simplified version, it states that regardless of the source the Internet is coming from, the Internet should be equal to everyone everywhere.

    Major companies would completely benefit without having Net Neutrality because that would mean that the buyers would have to pay more to get faster and more reliable Internet. With Net Neutrality today, people pay a certain amount for a certain Internet service, and they receive the Internet that they pay for.
   
     It's important to us (consumers), to have Net Neutrality because if we didn't, then we would have to pay our provider more then what we are paying now. With Net Neutrality, we have an equal and easy way to get to the Internet without all these complications.

     In 1934, the FCC voted to regulate the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act. That ruling enabled the FCC to enact new rules that would prevent Internet service providers from manipulating how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted along their networks. All and all, the FCC has total control of the providers and how much Internet service is delivered to the consumers.

System vs System

     The "spoils" system, was a system that brought greater rotation in the office. Andrew Jackson thought that is was healthy to clear out the government workers who had worked for predecessors, lest they become corrupt. Andrew Jackson is regarded as the President who entrenched the patronage...following this, he brought in a whole new group of "Jackson Democrats" into office.

     It was in 1881 when the Spoils System was diluted when Charles Guiteau, a disappointed office seeker, killed President James Garfield because he was not granted a government job. After he was killed, Congress passed the Pendleton Act or also known as the merit system. This brand new system required exams for federal employment. In order to do this, the act created a three-member Civil Commission.

     I do think that the spoils system is still part of the government today. Back when president Obama was running for office, there was an article written about his campaign team. It is a tradition that the president throw jobs to supporters. The Washington Post states, "Obama had doled out ambassadorships, at the same rate as the Bush administration (24 in total). Despite all those promised by the former in 2008 to enact "the most sweeping ethics reform in history." It was no surprise when Obama handed out posts, today it is common for the presidential candidate to break their promises. "Especially if that candidate promises not to do something all his predecessors have done."

Technology: Curse or a Blessing?

     After reading this article, I defiantly think that the police should need a warrant in order to search your phone. Of course there can be exceptions where your phone could save a life or bring justice to a criminal, but in everyday cases, the police should need a warrant. Having an authority figure take away your phone will always cause chaos. Just look at high school situations, whenever one hears about a teacher taking a students phone away from them, it usually ends with the student in the office and the teacher acting like nothing happened.

     The Fourth Amemdment states that there shall be no unreasonable searches and or seizures. Today though, people will say that the Fourth Amendment states something about their privacy and how in ANY case they don't have to give up their phone. That's true in some way, but when it comes down to saving a life or bringing justice to a criminal, that's pretty reasonable.

     In the case of Riley v. California, I would have to agree with the supreme courts ruling. What David Riley did was of course terrible and he should no doubt be punished, but one can not just simply go back in the past to do things differently. "The Justices ruled that police need a warrant from a judge to search someone's phone-just as the police need permission to search inside someone's home." Phone and home are totally different (obviously) but there are people who are not for having their personal items being searched with no permission. 

     "...This is the latest example of how the courts are trying to apply the basic rights enshrined in the Constitution to life in the 21st century." Back in the 1700's, the four fathers didn't expect the "...smartphones, Facebook, and Google-or how much of the worlds interactions today, from socializing to conducting business, would take place digitally." The world is constantly changing everyday and every second, there's no stopping it. 

     "...the police hadn't obtained a warrant (permission granted by a judge) or Riley's permission before searching his phone, they have violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy." This statement explains pretty much mine and many others stance on this topic. Police need a warrant to search someones private things-they need one for searching a house, why not searching a phone? 

Current Event

     Today it was announced that President Barack Obama will no longer be meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the visit of March 3 to Washington. The White House announced, a meeting could be in discussion as an attempt by the administration to influence Israel's March 17th elections. 
     
     "The president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress," National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said in a statement.

     

     “As a matter of long-standing principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections, to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country," said Meehan. 

     Netanyahu's visit has already sparked difficult relations between the Israeli leader and Obama. Republican House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address a combined meeting of Congress for the purpose of challenging the president's approach to Islamist extremism and negotiations with Iran over that country's nuclear program. The White House, which only found out about the visit from Boehner's office, accused Israel of breaching the diplomatic protocol.

     It is no secret on how Netanyahu feels about the opposition with ongoing talks with Iran, saying that Tehran cannot be trusted to abandon it's ability to build a nuclear weapon that could threaten Israel.

     "The president has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community," said Meehan. "The president has had many conversations with the Prime Minister on this matter, and I am sure they will continue to be in contact on this and other important matters.” Only time will tell if they keep I'm contact to discuss certain issues. 

An Electoral College Isn't an Actual College

     In the past couple of months, American Governtment has taught me so many different things that I didn't even know existed. Most recent though, would be that an Electoral College isn't a college in which kids go for 4 or plus years and get a degree, but something totally different. So I guess what they say is true, you learn something new everyday.

     The Electoral College was created as an function of Federalism, which means allowing the Feds and the States to conduct the election. The states handle the voting as they fit to see it. It also has the Feds mandating the electorates. In case someone needed a complete outline of what the Electoral College is, then I would direct them to article 2 of the constitution. Another term that people could connect an Electoral College with is, indirect democracy. - presidential voting funneled through a system - All in all, to some it up clear and fast, it protects the elite (wealthy) from the poor.

     The whole thing came to be due to the fear of factions. Some of the rules or regulations that it comes with is that it prohibits the largest faction (group of people) from being able to unfairly or (in reality) protect the people with money and power. Of course within any new rule, there was some fear from the forefathers such as, fearing masses of poor and the security of private property.

     I think that the Electoral College is fair because without it, we wouldn't be living in the world that we know today. Over the past few blogs that I have written, I have come to the conclusion that without some of the rules and regulations that we have today, the way we live would be totally different. Some people would like to know what the world would be like without some of the rules in our country, but do they think about the consequences that might follow? There would be many different problems without the Electoral College and one of the main problems would be that the President could win with the popular vote and that would cause even more problems. In the end, not having the Electoral College would cause our country many problems, problems in which people would rather not deal with.

May's Gilliam Wins the Epic Presidential Race

      In the movie Head of State, Chris Rock plays just another average man who is seemingly nothing, until he approached by a presidential team who want him (Mays Gilliam) to run for President. At first people laugh at the fact that Mays is even running due to the fact that he has no knowledge of politics and or any facts about what is happening around the world. Mays is "a little rough around the edges" but his political team changes that with the snap of the fingers. He usually wears just a t-shirt and a pair of jeans, but now that he is seen as a presidential candidate, he must dress and act the part. Suits, ties and nice shoes (not sneakers) is what one should be wearing.

      He begins his campaign by following everything that he told by his team. Whether that be, what to say, how to act, what to wear, and or following speeches that his team has come up with for him. He soon realizes that running for President that way is not the way he had wished, He soon tells his team that he will be running the way that he wants to run and if they have a problem with that, then he'll show them the door himself.

      Mays starts dressing the way he feels he should dress and starts to talk the way he feels he can get the message across the country more effectively. Of course his team is outraged and feels as the more it continues, they will loose the race even worse then they had imagined. People need jobs and his team soon realizes that if they want to keep working, then they are just going to have to be right by Mays' side the entire race.

      Mays started off his campaign by following the rules and just simply, playing by the book so that he would be safe and just another average candidate. Towards the middle of his campaign though, he realized that the way of playing is safe wasn't the way that he wanted to run. He changed his look back to the way it was in the beginning and started doing everything his way.He started to belive that he actually had a shot at being the president (in which case he did) but one of his team members admitted that he was only here so that his opponent would have someone to run against. Mays kicked them off the team but soon realized that he needed them to win, Although he didn't completely go back to the way things were at the beginning, he did go back to the suit for the big debate.

      Mays finally realized that one could wear a suit and look nice and at the same time, get his/her message across the country the way that he/she wants. He demolished his opponent in the big debate and it was only a matter of time before he knew if he had one or not, At the end of the movie, Mays won the race (happy ending-predictable) and knew that all the hard work and all the sweat and tears was worth it in the end, because while his opponent was punching everyone on his team, May's was celebrating and getting the kiss in which he had hoped for throughout the whole move,

                  ...And of course became the first African-American President in history...
 

Those Annoying Commercials Are Over...For Now

      Today, people are casting their votes for a new governor at this very moment. When I was younger I could seriously care less about Election Day because the only thing I knew it meant was no school, and yes even today I still think that's what it means. But now that I'm almost eighteen, I understand so much more and take it more seriously then I ever have. Being only seventeen I can't vote just yet, but in a year I'll actually have to listen to the annoying commercials that are on tv screens 24/7 and decide where my vote will land. Everybody has to make a decision today that will effect our state for a good few years and if I were eighteen and registered to vote, my vote would be for Charlie Baker, or so I thought.

     As I was writing this blog, pro Baker, the more and more I wrote, the less and less I agreed with his plans. Although he does have a few good goals for the future, I would vote for Martha Coakley in the end.

     In any election, the two candidates have a focus or goal for the future and in Coakley's case, her goal is to focus on the early childhood education. It's smart to focus on the children who in a way are seen as the level of education who needs no help because it's only Pre-K or kindergarten. Another factor to the education is to make sure that there are no more waitlists of Pre-K. Nobody wants their child to have to start education and learning skills later then usual, the moment that your child is ready, you want them to start school.

     Another one of her goals, is to increase financial plans for college and who wouldn't want more money that isn't yours for your future? College is coming up for some of us really soon and many of us will need financial help and if Martha Coakley is able to expand that, then I feel as though people would want to go to college more knowing that they are going to be ok financially. Coakley is also a supporter of Question 4 which basically states that all MA workers would be able to acquire up to 5 sick days/year. Business with more then 11 workers are eligible for this and if ine works at a business with less then 11, (which most people don't) then their sick days would be unpaid.

     Lastly, Coakley would like to ban any store caught in EBT terms, which in more simpler terms means that, stores allowing people using their welfare money to but things such as, alcohol, tobacco, and scratch tickets. People who are given money but the state to provide for their family, should not be using it on things that is the compelete opposite.

     In the end though, I am not 18 which means that I can't vote so my opinion pretty much means nothing to anyone at this point because I'm sure that everybody has voted by now. Regardless, one year will come quicker then I thought and then my opinion will matter to one person and one person only, myself. It will be my decision, like it is my parents, like it is my aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends and in the end, it all really comes down to that ballet box, which holds the answer to our future.