The Underground Economy

      The underground economy is a system off people who are unable to find a job.  The purpose of this shadow economy is to provide income "under the table" to these people, which excludes them from paying taxes.  Common places an underground, or shadow, economy is in effect are in Brazil or in southern Europe.  This "hidden" economy can be beneficial because the people are able to make money for themselves which they then use to buy things which helps the economy.  People who are unable to get a "real" job are able to earn a living with this shadow economy.  The underground economy could be detrimental the more people are getting paid under the table, the less taxes are coming into the government's funds.   Also, taxes  would go up because less people are paying them and the government needs money in order to do their job.  Overall, the underground economy helps the people in need of a job and money but it hurts the government by not providing revenue.

Net Neutrality

          According to Wikipedia, net neutrality "is the principle that Internet service providers and government should treat all data on the Internet equally."  A simpler definition is that the purpose is to have no discriminating to anything on the Internet.   Net neutrality is important to corporations because it allows them to get a broad range of consumers but they would prefer to make a profit. It is also important to consumers because it doesn't allow big companies to make people do things.  For example, if a big company makes a plan to make people pay for a service then that is not fair to the people that can't afford it.

         The purpose of the FCC is to monitor the Internet to assure it is neutral.  Recently, there was an outbreak where the FCC allowed a plan to let companies require a fee to customers.  The public spoke out against it causing the FCC to put this proposal on a shelf.  This was an example of how the FCC remains neutral for the Internet.  In the article it states "the FCC will enact new rules that would prevent internet service providers from manipulating how how quickly or slowly sites are transmitted."

Merit vs Spoils systems

The merit system is a system where it hires government employees based on their ability to perform.  The soils system hires government based on people who know others in the government and their supporters.  Obviously the two are very different.  The spoils system was a lot more common back when George Washington was president.  In the article it states that "most of Washington's employees belonged to the Federalist party" which is the party  Washington tended to lean more towards.  Washington started the tradition of the spoils system for a long time to come.  Andrew Jackson, however, was the turning point when the systems switched.  He basically got rid of the spoils system and inherited the merit system which is still in use in today's government.  He made his cabinet not full of people who have been in government for a while. Instead he brought a new group of people into his cabinet.  The spoils system is effecting government today but only at a small percent.  About 3% of the government still is involved with it today.  Most jobs come from private institutions competing alongside the federal government.




http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h965.html

Cellphone Blog

  The Riley vs. California was about a man, David Riley, who was pulled over for having an expired car registration.  During the stop, police looked through Riley's cell phone and saw texts and videos which led them to believe he was associated with a gang.  They ended arresting him and took his phone.  He was sentenced to 15 years in prison.  This case went all the way to the supreme court.  The supreme court ruled that the police were wrong for what they did and because they violated the fourth amendment. The court was able to do so because they were "trying to apply the basic rights enshrined in the constitution to life in the 21st century" (14).  I agree with the ruling of the supreme court because most people have a lot of important  information on their cellphones so it should be protected. This is a landmark case because it shows how the old ways of the constitution are being brought to the 21st century.  Another good point the article had was back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution "they had in mind the British soldiers before the Revolution,where they could enter colonists' homes, search property, and seize their belongings without their permission" (15-16).  What the supreme court is doing is bringing those same ideas into the technological world today.
  Lastly, they point for making police officers get a warrant in order to obtain a cellphone is to protect the rights of individuals.  On page 16, it states "people's most private information is all accessible from a device that leaves home when they do."  It is important that police have a reason to go through and accuse someone for a crime by just looking at a phone.  The supreme court is bringing old ideas from the Constitution into modern times.

Current Event: Jury Selection For Bombing Trial

     On January 5, 2015 jury selection began for the Boston Marathon Bombing Trial. There are currently 1,200 individuals in the jury pool. In order to be chosen, these individuals will have to be willing to impose the death penalty if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is convicted. He has pleaded not guilty to charges in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing which killed three and wounded more than 260. The problem with this is the difficulty they are having in finding people who have not yet formed an opinion on Tsarnaev’s guilt. The judge and attorneys heard from about a half a dozen people as the second phase of jury selection began, and several said that they could never impose the death penalty. Several also stated that the lengthy trial could cause financial hardships considering that the trial is expected to last three to four months. One man pressed by Judge George O’Toole Jr. on whether or not he would be able to change his opinion on how Tsarnaev deserves the death sentence stated,”I can’t imagine any evidence that would change how I feel about what happened”. Another potential juror , a Catholic theologian, said that he can not impose the death penalty under any circumstances. “There is no way in modern America today...that I am going to vote for the death penalty. I will not,” he said. The judge question 20 jurors Thursday, but it is not yet clear who will be excused. A defense attorney complained that Judge O’Toole was not asking them specifically if they would be able to vote for life in prison if Tsarnaev was found guilty. “It doesn’t matter whether the juror might vote for life in an unintentional killing because that’s not what we’re dealing with,” Bruck said. “We really don’t think we’re going to have a fair jury unless they’re asked”.

         I understand the difficulty with the selection of the jury considering that many of them have initial opinions on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and what they believe his fate should be. However, in my opinion, in no way should Tsarnaev get away with killing innocent people, including 8 year old Martin Richard, and wounding over 260. Whether that means death  sentence or not, he will serve for his immoral acts and justice will be served.

The Electoral College

The electoral college was created for many reasons.  The main reason being the huge fear of factions.  By creating the electoral college it would not allow big groups or factions to rule unfairly.  The forefathers did not want large masses of poor to have all the power and wanted to protect those with money and power.  It also allows the federalists and states to run their own elections.  This is another effort to protect the elite, rich people from the poor.  Another reason the electoral college was created was because the forefathers wanted a distinct population when selecting a President for the United States.  I think that the electoral college is fair because it allows each individual state to choose their vote based on the overall vote not just if the rich wants someone to be president or who the poor wants.  It also gives a candidate to have a major chance at winning an election.  For example, in 2000 Al Gore and George Bush were running against each other for presidency.  Even though Al Gore won more Americans vote George W. Bush won the election because he won the electoral vote.  In the end, the electoral college was made to help with the presidential election and continues to play a huge role in today's elections.

Head of State

In the movie Head of State, Chris Rock plays an average guy, Mays Gillian, blending in who then turns into a top candidate running for president.  He is chosen as a candidate because he is all about the people.  The movie starts off with him saving a cat and rescuing a woman from a house that is about to be blown up.  This act caught the eyes of a party who just lost their candidate to a plane crash.  At first Gillian thinks that these people are crazy asking him to run for president but he still agrees to run with them.  His opponent Lewis thinks that their idea is crazy because Gillian has no previous political experience and was sure that he could win the presidential election by a landslide.  

Mays Gillian evolves greatly throughout his candidacy.  Mays’ political team at first just told him all he had  to do was read the speeches they wrote and do what they say.  He began to listen and follow their lead but then realized that he needed to be himself and focus on what the people actually want and not just attire what they want. Throughout his campaign he listened to the people and was all for the people while his opponents just told them what they wanted to hear. In the end Gillian win the presidential election because the people thought he would actually help them instead of just saying what they wanted to hear.