North Korea Blog Post

Brief History
Since world war two, the Korean peninsula has been partitioned into two occupation zones, divided at the 38th parallel. The US took control of the south, whereas the USSR controlled the north. North Korea is now a one-man dictatorship due to Kim Jong-il. North Korea was first established on May 1, 1948 with Kim II Sung as president. After an invasion on South Korea and a seize of Seoul, Kim II Sung died on July 8th, 1994. Four years later, in September, North Korea launched a missile test over Japan, claiming it was just a scientific satellite, making North Korea's nuclear intentions unclear. Korea allowed the US to conduct inspections in exchange for increased food aid and an introduction of potato production. In the fall of 1999, North Korea experienced a severe famine, killing an estimated 2-3 million due to only 10% of the rice fields available for work. Malnutrition then continued to plague North Korea in 2000. Thousands attempted to flee to China or South Korea but only few were successful. Those who weren't, were captured for torture and/or execution. North Korea has grown to have one of the world's most secretive societies, being accused of violating human rights, inhumane conditions in prison camps, summary executions and denial of freedom of expression and movement. Recently, suspicions have heightened, and Kim Jong-il is taking a dictatorship over North Korea.

Current State of Affairs
The North Korean government has formally rejected the nuclear test moratorium it had been placed under by the United Nations Security Council. A prior deal between the U.S. and North Korea to exchange food aid to the communist country in return for the nuclear test moratorium is now off the table indefinitely. North Korea has traditionally enjoyed the support of its powerful neighbor China, but in recent years Chinese leaders appear to have become increasingly frustrated and embarrassed by Pyongyang's intransigence over its nuclear program and its resolute isolationism in all other areas.

Regime and State Change
I think that there could be regime and state change if there was a change of leaders. It seems no one likes how North Korea is being ruled so if the main problem was taken out of the equation, control would change drastically. The people of North Korea are desperate for a change in both their state and regime and if given the opportunity of a change of power, the people would take it immediately. If Kim Jong-Il was removed, torture, execution, and fear would also leave which would bring change in itself. To see North Korea with fearless citizens and children with homes, that would be a change in the state itself.

Sources
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/02/a_nation_of_racist_dwarfs.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secret-state-of-north-korea/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secret-state-of-north-korea/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il http://ukshadowlight.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/i-just-read-th-3/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15256929

Fundamental Goals of Politics Essay #10

While interest groups and political parties each play a significant role in the United States political system, they differ in their fundamental goals. The fundamental goal of interest groups in the political process is to influence the public policy along with Congress and government officials. It's possible that the interest groups are also working towards changing laws that they don't agree with. 

The fundamental goal of major political parties in the political process is to elect certain candidates they favor into office, as well as gaining as much control as they can over the government. Gaining control and having who they want in office would make it so more of their ideas are heard and acted upon in society. 

There are many ways interest groups influence the political process, one being media campaigns. Media campaigns are a good way for interest groups to get noticed and to have their most important issues gain attention. The more attention an issue gains the more likely the government is to deal with it. Another way interest groups influence the political process is through Political Action Committees (PACs) donations. With the money they receive, they can put more emphasis on certain issues or policies they want changed or acted upon. 

Media campaigns are seen worldwide for particular policies that interest groups focus on. Through the media interest groups are able to catch policymaker's attention and therefore have a greater influence on them. If media is covering an issue from an interest group, it obviously has enough of a voice to gain media attention and is then more likely to gain a policymaker's attention. This leads to interest groups having a greater influence on the decision making process/policymakers, and from there, they have their foot in the door of the political process.

Policy Agenda Essay #9

One of the most important ways the media influences politics is through agenda setting.

A policy agenda is a collection of important issues which people are closely examining. These people may or may not make up the government, however, they play a part in the policy-making. The media engages in the agenda setting by the media getting the nation's
citizens to watch and try to understand the subject or problem on that topic. The president tends to have an advantage at gaining media attention because of his personal image. He is the leader of the United States and this public image attracts more attention. Contrasting between 1974 and 2002, older generations tend to view the network nightly news more than younger generations and continues to be that way. Also comparing 1974 and 2002, the young people's viewership of the network nightly news has gone down significantly and continues to decline. One implication for presidents in their use of the media to promote their political and policy objectives to the American public is the State of the Union address. It is broadcasted on every network and also on the internet so it gives everyone the opportunity, young or old, to hear the president promote their policy objectives.

Majority in Congress Essay #8

Two advantages the majority party the United States House of Representatives has in lawmaking are: the majority party in the house sets the legislative agenda which means they decide which bills get voted on and when they get voted on. This means that they plan everything when it comes to try and passing a bill, therefore, making the House of Reps the most important part of Congress for passing a bill.

The biggest difference between the House and Senate in the filibuster rule (an extended debate). In the House a simple majority passes legislation, but in the Senate only 40% can block a vote by filibusters. 60 of 100 votes (a two-fifths majority) is needed to end a filibuster. In the House of Reps, there are more formal procedures and rules and no filibuster which means no unanimous voting because there needs to be 2/3 votes. Also, the Senate can have holds on the bills.

The differences in the previous paragraphs can lead to a passage of a bill in one chamber but not the other. One reason is because even though the House may pass a bill, the Senate can kill the bill with a filibuster. Another reason is because even though the House may pass a bill, the Senate can delay or stop it with a hold.

Finance Proposals Essay #7

Eliminating soft money

a) The first proposal is to eliminate the political contributions earmarked for party-building expenses at the grass-rootslevel or for generic party advertising. Though after the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002 was passed, was finally when soft money contribution were subject be limited to a certain amount instead of unlimited. In favor of the proposal, soft money is unfair because if a candidate comes from a wealthy background, or has individuals with deep pockets, their campaign would receive more money than another candidate's. On the contrary, soft money does not go straight to the candidate, it goes directly to the campaign which does make it fair because the candidate needs the campaign to run in the election.

b) The second proposal is to limit independent expeditures on the campaign trail. Independent expenditures are when a candidate can spend as much money as they want on their own campaign with no limits. The advantage to limiting this helps level the playing ground so that the fight is fair, and a wealthy person gets more help because they used more money on their campaign. On the contrary, limiting how much money a candidate can spend on their own campaign, is like limiting free speech. So, there are two sides to this fight and neither one is wrong, they both just have separate advantages and disadvantages.