Extra Credit Blog

The title of this article is "Supreme Court Justices hotly debate the use of a lethal injection drug". Basically what is behind this article is the Supreme Court took place in a fiery debate over using a lethal injection drug on inmates. The justices’ had some angry words to say that appeared to reflect a deepening divide over the death penalty itself. 
In the article it states, "The justices were considering a challenge brought by death-row inmates in Oklahoma, who allege that the use of a sedative called midazolam has resulted in troubling executions that violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Problematic executions in Oklahoma and elsewhere have captured national headlines since early last year". This has been a debate that has sparked a riot in our nation. People claim that the use of a lethal injection is unconstitutional. All of the justices have their own personal opinion on the matter, and not all agree. This makes it very tricky. Elena Kagen stated, "Oklahoma could not prove that its use of midazolam would render inmates properly unconscious so they would not feel the effects of the potassium chloride, which causes death — “being burned alive from the inside” as she described it". An inmate in
Oklahoma who, after receiving the injection to be executed, writhed in pain from the injection is what drew attention back to the matter. This particular section of the article sparked my attention, "In Oklahoma, when state officials could no longer obtain the drug they used to rely on, they turned to the drug midazolam. This particular drug was used in three problematic executions last year, turning it into a focal point for debates about lethal injections. The most high-profile of these was Oklahoma’s bungled attempt to execute convicted murderer Clayton Lockett. He kicked, grimaced and survived for 43 minutes after the execution began. He eventually died after officials had already halted the process, and a state investigation blamed the bungled procedure on the manner in which the execution team inserted the needle. Midazolam was also used last year in the execution of an Arizona inmate who gasped and snorted and took nearly two hours to die, as well as the lethal injection of an Ohio inmate who gasped and choked before dying after nearly half an hour". 
In my opinion, I do not agree with a lethal injection. It is not an okay or humane way to die. To me, it does not matter how bad of a person you are or the extent of the crime you have committed. I believe spending the rest of your life behind bars is a far worse punishment than an injection that kills you. With the injection, you suffer a few minutes of pain and then its over. Rotting in jail with the rest of your life, in a dark cold cell confined to solitude is what scum bags deserve. 

The Fed

In my own personal opinion, I believe that the Federal Reserve is an asset to this country. An asset is defined as a useful or valuable thing, and that is what the Federal Reserve is. "One of the main functions of the Federal Reserve System is to moderate the peaks and valleys caused by the so called free market of the banks. In good times, banks readily lend money, which increases the money supply thus fueling inflation. In recessions, banks tighten up the credit therefore contracting the money supply causing the economy to spiral down deeper into recession. The Fed, by controlling the reserve requirement for banks, and the interest rates charged to the banks, can keep both situations from becoming extreme" (The Pros and Cons of the Federal Reserve System). "Unlike other federal systems which are mainly controlled by the government and its officials, the US Federal Reserve is a separate body and functions independently from the government. The federal system does not rely on the appropriations given by Congress but operates using its own earnings. This process somehow limits the political influences into the system. The primary function of the system is to create monetary policies that will help achieve the overall goals of the fiscal policies of the President and Congress. It also contributes to the safety and soundness of the financial system. It is the Board’s sole responsibility to set the requirements for depository institutions and approve changes in discount rates proposed by the directors of the Reserve Banks" (The Pros and Cons of the Federal Reserve System). The Federal Reserve was made to satisfy the need for a more consistent and organized banking system which would uplift economic situations of the U.S. along with organizing its monetary matters into a more coherent system, which in turn would uphold the rights of consumers and their businesses ratifications of the Federal Reserve act. Having this type of power, the Federal Reserve System gains control over the interest rates being implemented among State or local Banks as well as to how much money these banks would be retaining as a reserve in their respective domain. Because of this, the Federal Reserve System actually regulates the United States of America in its local and national banks. "Today, the Federal Reserve's responsibilities fall into four general areas: Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices, supervising and regulating banks and other important financial institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers and maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in Financial Market s, providing certain financial services to the U.S. government, U.S. financial institutions, and foreign official institutions, and playing a major role in operating and overseeing the nation's payments systems" (The Pros and Cons of the Federal Reserve System). 

Works Cited: "The Pros and Cons of the Federal Reserve System." Subject Money. N.p., n.d. Web.

Business Cycles, Recessions, and Depressions

It is so tough for economists to predict the business cycle because it is constantly changing. On page 2 it states, "Business cycles and market cycles have a lot in common....Business cycles and market cycles reinforce each other....These imbalances inevitably unwind. Just as people often get sick faster than they get better, bear markets are more violent than bull markets and unemployment rises more quickly than it falls. The event that ends these imbalances and thus the business cycle is seldom the same". A bull market is a market in which share prices are rising, encouraging buying. A bear market is a market in which prices are falling, encouraging selling. A recession is a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified as by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters. A recession becomes a depression, as stated on page 5, "Depressions are like plagues: devastating, rare, and only dimly understood until after the fact. They occur when the economy's normal recuperative mechanism fails to engage; the bungee cord breaks. The usual culprit is a broken financial system. Often, an investment boom turns to bust, leaving businesses and consumers with a glut of unneeded buildings and equipment that depresses future spending". The cause of these economic patterns have differed through our history in many ways. "Long run growth drives our standard of living. In the short run, the economy goes through regular cycles of expansion and recession. These cycles are driven by how much consumers and businesses spend, which in turn depends a lot on their view of he future. Bullish expectations boost investment, stock prices, and lending all of which feed back to the economy. Eventually, though, expectations get ahead of fundamentals, creating imbalances. These imbalances come undone usually with a nudge from the Federal Reserve, producing recessions. Recessions create pent up demand. Low interest rates eventually release that demand bringing the recession to a close. Sometimes though this natural recuperative process fails because a broken financial system dams the flow of credit. Then, a recession may become a depression". So basically, all in all, our economy sucks.

Underground Economy

The underground economy is the part of a country's economic activity that is unrecorded and untaxed by its government. In the article "$2 Trillion Underground Economy May Be Recovery's Savior", it states that the growing underground economy may helping to prevent the real economy from sinking further. The underground economy is beneficial in some ways because it includes firms that hire hourly or daily construction labor, information technology specialists and web designers. Many who have a job that does not pay enough take on another job that pays under the table. The effects of the underground economy are larger than people perceive it to be, and the result is less tax money paid to the various levels of government. Though the underground economy can be beneficial, it can also be detrimental. In the article it states that "shadow" economies are usually associated with illegal activity, such as drug dealing. Another downside is that people who are not on the books do not get social security or health benefits. People who do these types of jobs run the risk of getting exploited with lower pay or not being paid at all. People are running out of patience when it comes to finding a job and losing income.

Net Neutrality

As defined by Google net neutrality is, "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites". Net neutrality is important to both corporations and consumers for quite a few reasons. According to the website theopeninter.net, there are seven important reasons on why it is important. The first being a free and open internet is the single greatest technology of our time. Second, a free and open internet stimulates ISP competition. Third, a free and open internet helps prevent unfair pricing practices. Fourth, a free and open internet promotes innovation. Fifth, a free and open internet promotes the spread of ideas. Sixth, a free and open internet drives entrepreneurship. And lastly, a free and open internet protects freedom of speech. The FCC controls the neutrality of the internet by having rules and regulations.  


Works Cited:
http://www.theopeninter.net/
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

1. 
   

Spoils System & the Merit System

By definition, the Spoils System is the practice of a successful political party giving public office to its supporters. The Merit System, by definition, is the process of promoting and hiring government employees based on their ability to perform a job, rather than on their political connections. Initially, it is the opposite of the Spoils System. Our country seems to have progressed by getting rid of the Spoils System today. As a whole, we have created a more democratic society by removing ways to create a majority in the government without the people's consent. We have realized that the spoils system is not an effective way to run the country as well. Most government officials, however, got their jobs based on previous experience, or their ability to do that job. The spoils system was not an evenhanded way to run the country. Once people realized this, they stopped using the spoils system. Since then the government has been working and functioning better. In quote, why and how the Merit System was created is as states, "The merit system uses educational and occupational qualifications, testing, and job performance as criteria for selecting, hiring, and promoting civil servants. It began in the federal government circa 1883. The merit system was established to improve parts of the governmental work force previously staffed by the political patronage or spoils system, which allowed the political party in power the opportunity to reward party regulars with government positions. The merit system has been adopted by state and local governments as well." In light of the research I have conducted to find if the Spoils System is still used today, I have found that here and there the Spoils System still makes itself present in some instances. For example, in the article I found titled "Obama's Racial Spoils System" it talks about how Obama has racial views in trying to achieve things he believes is beneficial to our society. The article also provides evidence from Obama's speeches that prove he uses the Spoils System. In my personal opinion, the Spoils System should not exist in the slightest. It should only be the Merit System simply because it has proven to be effective for our government. 




Works Cited:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Merit+System
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/08/obamas_racial_spoils_system.html

Cell Phone Article: Question #2

In my opinion, I do not believe it is a good idea for police to be able to search somebody's phone without a warrant. It is an invasion of privacy, especially if there is no logical reason for the police to search the phone. For example, if a person is pulled over for speeding and the police officer asks to search the person's phone, there is no need for that because it has no direct relation to why that person was being pulled over. However, I do believe it is okay for police to search a person's cell phone in a circumstance that involves a criminal case. For example, if police pull over a person that is suspected of kidnapping a child or murdering someone, that is a logical reason for the police to search the person's cell phone without a warrant. In a case of a serious crime or emergency I believe it is okay for police to search someone's phone without a warrant, but only in a case of an emergency and nothing more or less.
I believe that in the case regarding David Riley, the police had the right to obtain and search his cell phone due to the fact that they found two loaded guns in his car. That raises suspicion for safety of people, prompting the police to look into it further. I believe the police were right in searching Riley's phone because it led them to the information of a local gang he was involved in and the cell phone also linked him to a shooting. Without the cell phone, the police would not have gained knowledge of this important information and would not be able to build a case against Riley. If the police did not see the guns in Riley's car then there would be no logical reason for the police to search his phone. But because of the two loaded guns, it gave police a reason to search this man's cell phone. I do believe in the right of privacy, especially with cell phones and electronics, but when it involves a serious case of cause for alarm I believe privacy goes out the window and police have the right to search cell phones and electronics. In the case involving David Riley, I believe the police had the right to search his phone and the Supreme Court should not have thrown out the case.

Current Events Topic

Georgia Woman Says She Was Asleep When Shot by Police Chief Husband

"A Georgia woman who was shot by her police chief husband on New Year's Day in their bedroom told investigators today that she was asleep when the shooting happened and couldn't provide any information about how it occurred, authorities said. Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents interviewed Margaret McCollom in her hospital room at the Atlanta Medical Center, where she was taken after she was shot by Peachtree City Police Chief William McCollom in their home -- accidentally, according to the police chief. Though she could not say how the incident happened, Margaret McCollom told investigators that she believes the shooting was an accident, the GBI said in a statement. The police chief has been cooperating with agents investigating the incident, according to the GBI. Peachtree City police spokesman Lt. Mark Brown said during a news conference on New Year's Day that chief of police William McCollom "well-liked, well-loved."

"We are concerned for his wife and are concerned for the chief," Brown said.There were no witnesses inside the home and the shooting took place in the couple's bedroom, according to the GBI. McCollom called 911 at about 4 a.m. on New Year's Day and said he shot his wife in their home by accident, the GBI told ABC affiliate WSB in Atlanta. McCollom has been placed on administrative leave during the investigation."

The issue at hand is that an officer shot his wife in her sleep "accidentally", and neither one claims to have any recognition of how the incident occurred.
In my opinion, this whole thing seems odd and very suspicious. How do you "accidentally" shoot your wife in her sleep? He is a police officer. A police officer does not accidentally shoot his wife in his sleep. If that is the case, he should not be allowed to carry a gun. It makes me question the motive behind it all. Was the wife really asleep, or did she just say that she was because she was afraid of her husband? Did the husband truly accidentally shoot his wife or was it on purpose? What were the events that lead up to the shooting? So many questions boil from the unfortunate "accident", and I have a feeling the truth may be hard to get. Cops now a days have a very bad reputation, and it only seems to be getting worse.

Electoral College Question(s)

The prospect of directly electing the ruler of a nation was simply unheard of at the time. Most plans introduced at the constitutional convention called for Congress to elect the president, but the Framers ultimately decided that arrangement was too prone to corruption, and would weaken the executive if he owed his job to the legislative branch, so they instead designated a temporary "legislature" created for the sole purpose of choosing a president, and then dissolving. Some states held direct elections for their electors, even in the early days of the republic, though most simply appointed them through the state legislature. By 1824, most states had switched to popular elections as the method for choosing electors.
It is a shame that we live in a company that claims to be a
democracy, yet our votes don’t necessarily count. A president can lose or tie with the popular vote, but win the presidency if they have more votes according to the electoral college. This doesn’t make sense to me. I think that they should just count every vote, and whichever candidate has the most votes should be the president.
The first draft of our Constitution had Congress electing the President, but many delegates to the Constitution Convention were concerned that would create a much too cozy relationship between Congress and the President. The Electoral College was a compromise to avoid that problem. Only a few of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were in favor of a popular vote for the President. While most delegates trusted the voters in their own state many had concerns about some of the other states, particularly the mercantile northern states versus the slave holding southern states and visa-verse. I believe in some aspects it did succeed and in others it failed as well.