In order to go out and collect my images, I made a notepad on my iPhone with just some general ideas and then set out on foot. One afternoon, I essentially walked home. Using my ideas to guide what neighborhoods and streets to walk through, I just took pictures as I saw fit. If I saw something that I could possibly use, I took a picture of it. After I got home, I then walked more through just my neighborhood of Northern Liberties for pictures. I must have gathered at least 90 photos, which I left sifted through and divided into categories. I then used those pictures and showed them to classmates and my teacher to double check their globalization-ness. The top pictures won the chance to be in the actual project. There were two pictures that made the cut that I would call my favorites: the picture of St. Augustine's and the picture of a mural in my neighborhood. Both of these I felt fell more on the original side compared to my other pictures of foreign cars, banks, and restaurants. I attended St. Augustine's church since I was small and even was an alter server for 4 years, yet I never knew the affect the church had on the Filipino community or the affect that community had on the church. I have also been involved in the Mural Arts program since I was young because of my father's job as an artist. I have personally met many of the international artists in the program and watched several murals comes to life. I now see these murals every day in both Northern Liberties and other parts of the city. 

Luckily, I was able to come up with enough pictures for my project, but it was a challenge to find pictures that actually showed globalization in Philadelphia. There are countless things I could have taken a picture of and then explained how they related to globalization, but the trick of this project was clearly showing globalization in the pictures themselves. That was indeed hard for topics other than like trade and economy. Philadelphia, just like many big cities in America, have been affected largely by international imports and exports, but finding obvious sources of globalization other than that is hard. New York City may have been less than a challenge since it is has more obvious communities occupied by only certain groups of people than Philadelphia, but I can see a person doing this project in other large cities having similar problems as me. 

I definitely learned more about the functions of Philadelphia and what make this city was it is. I never knew all that stuff about the church I always considered to be "my church." I also just never paid attention to the smaller things like the Chinese stores down the street or the Spanish translations on advertisements and such. Globalization is everywhere and affects everyone. This is what this project has taught me.

Link to Promo 1

Link to Episode 1

Link to Episode 2

Link to Randomness Episode

Link to Episode 3

Link to Episode 4 

Link to Episode 5

*Episode 6 Pending*

The countries I examined for this benchmark were Poland and El Salvador. Poland is located in Eastern Europe (bordering the Baltic Sea) and El Salvador is in Central America. Both have been experiencing environmental damage and climate change due to heavy pollution from the local population and industries. Although El Salvador's conditions are much harsher, the people have done more to react to the damage and conditions than Poland's people have. However, the two nations are both stable when it comes to trade and neither one of them have an overhanging threat of war. 

I was able to come across all this information by doing very in depth research. Going into this benchmark, I already had information on Poland's environmental damage because of previous assignments. So, I just took a step forward and researched the affects of this environmental damage, and most of the sources I came across also included information about Poland's response to the damage and climate change. Looking at the path I walked down when researching this with Poland (my keywords and google news searches), I merely did the same thing with El Salvador. Any general information or named organizations I came across I then researched separately to see what that was all about. Furthermore, researching the friendly trade partners and hostile neighbors were also very closely interlinked. I began with the CIA World Factbook for general information on what they trade, who they trade with, and what international problems/disputes they had recently. From there, I searched other sources for more specific information and facts. Also, if I did not come across much information this way on the hostile neighbors, I simply looked up who the neighbors of the two countries were and searched for the relations between the countries and their neighbors. This gave me the information I needed. 

So, finding the information for the 5-point framework was simple enough. But, ranking them was a different story. I wasn't sure how to tell if certain conditions were necessarily "irreversible" or how much events that happened decades before affected the international relations of today. Therefore, actually analyzing the countries' collapsibility this way was a little difficult. 

In the end, the only regret I have for my project is that it isn't very creative. I spent all my time and energy collecting facts and sources, so the only creative part of my project was that I made a little "red-to-green scale" video for my ranking - which I can't even show on SLATE. If I had more time to actually put the information together and more room around all my fact and information, I would have put in more pictures and maybe videos of interviews that I came across. However, as my project stands now, I am content. I did the best I could with researching and getting the information across and it is not horrible to look at. I'm satisfied. 

I was most accurate on the gender category. I figured that the odds of a boy being born to a girl being born were pretty close to 50/50 just because of the genetics of it all. But, I remember someone telling me that there were more females in the world, so that is why I put 51% female and 49%. I was still pretty close to the real answer of 50% and 50%. It is kind of interesting to see where I was far from accurate such as with education. What I put was basically the opposite of the reality. I put 70% for both males and females for without secondary school education, and that number is true for those with secondary school education. I figured that a majority of each gender would have access to primary education, but I thought that number would decrease since a majority of the population needs to go and work and can't necessarily afford school. I see I was wrong here. I suppose it does make sense since a lot of countries do offer free education and the value of education has been rising as more and more people realize that the higher education one has, the higher paying job they will receive. 

2.Which of the real/correct answers shocked you the most? Explain.

To be honest, the poverty, drinking water, and technology categories surprised me the most. I was always raised to appreciate what I have because most of the world doesn't have access to what I would call luxuries like clean water and technology. In classes and on television, a lot of attention is paid towards those living in poverty. So, I always thought that well over half the world population lived in poverty and therefore did not have access to clean drinking water and technology. Well, I was wrong. Only 48% of the population is in poverty, and while yes the number of those who are rich is  such a small number probably compared to that, the middle class (working people) probably dominate the population. 

3. If you were way off course in your predictions, explain why it is that you feel that happened. If you were spot on, explain why you think that happened. - due by class on Friday - 2.10.2012

I suppose the only knowledge I have of the world comes from what my parents and teachers taught me and what television has shown me. But these views are often one-sided and do not portray the entire world as a whole. So, my own estimations at the numbers get messed up as a result. 

I wanted to have a topic that not a whole lot of other people would choose, but will still be relevant to me on a personal level. I love to talk. I am incredibly opinionated and I love to articulate my thoughts, and the same can go for Markia. You suggested the topic to us, and we thought it would be interesting to explore our rights as students in school. The most interesting fact I learned from doing this project was how the most noticeable start for this fight of students rights was with the student protestors of the Vietnam War. Shows love to reference protestors from this time, but I didn't know it was a big deal in schools. 

I liked the video format, and that it was a relatively longer video because it had to be 5-8 minutes. This left more room for different types of video tools and aspects. Of course, it then became a challenge to tie these different aspects together. When Markia and I showed our video to her older sister to proof read, she did express to us that it wasn't until the very end that everything was tied together and made things clear. The reason for this was mostly we had a lot of clips mixed around and a lot of b-role. To be honest, when we captured some of our video, we lost the audio. So, we had to work around this. We didn't want to have to much of a "pictures with our voice narration" situation because that is too typical, too boring. In order to avoid this, we had to get a little creative. I think that our end product though - especially will our little "reflection" at the end - came together to show the story we wanted to tell. 

We actually got a lot of planning in early on and did our recording not at the last minute. But, when we started putting together the video we started have ideas like "Oh, it would be cool to have a picture of Lauf teaching here." These probably would have helped make our video more interesting. So, we probably could have had some sort storyboard going on from the beginning to lay out all our brainstorming ideas. 

I didn't know the fine lines that come along with student free speech in school. According to some court decisions, we can say what we want as long as no disturbance is called. Then, in other decisions, the message can itself be a big enough disturbance or the risk of a disturbance is enough to silence the students. 

Overall, I have been proud of the work I have done with learning about the rules and regulations of election campaigns. In my first blog post, I unfortunately did not dig down deep enough into the rules. This is understandable since the laws are constantly making small, specific changes with new Supreme Court cases and legislation. Also, public opinion is constantly changing. Luckily, through my work on my first quarter benchmark surrounding the Federal Election Campaign Act, I was able to get a better grasp on the information. I'm certain that there is still more for me to understand. There are numerous cases to look at and court decisions to examine to really understand the history of election campaign regulation and its current situation. Knowing that there was one big case (Citizens United vs FEC) just two years ago tells me that there is more to pay attention to. And what about the Occupy Protests? Surely, the citizens of America are just getting more and more dissatisfied with how the government is running. 

Disclosure is one specific subject that requires further investigation. Yes, the public has the right to know who is funding the presidential candidates and their ads. But, when do we get to know this. How much time do we have to examine these facts before it's time to elect someone to office? Is there even enough time to connect all the kinks in the chains that connect different government officials and corporate heads? I can't exactly speak out to government officials before I have a better idea of the current situation. Once I do a little bit more research, I can catch up on what I missed with the last assignment: contact. In my 2nd blog post I named the senators and representatives that have taken an active role in solving the problems in election campaign regulation. So, first up, I need to show my support. There is online petition I can sign, so I might as well go ahead and sign it. Next, I need to reach out to my local officials and speak out about my frustrations. 

I know that my best strategy to continue is to write personal letters to the government officials while at the same time increasing awareness with the public. Most people see the campaign ads on television, but most people don't understand who is behind them and how they ended up on TV. How would people feel if they knew just how many little strings corporations can to pull so they can dangle their favorite candidates in front of us for voting? I wasn't happy about it. As I mentioned in my posts, public trust in government is a huge thing. Officials know it. If they see that people are just angry, which they are, and that they are starting to lose even more faith in the government, they will be compelled to make a change. So, I can just start with my school. Just talk to students about it. With the current Republican primaries and the upcoming presidential election, this will definitely be a relevant discussion to have - especially with all the newly-18 and eligible voters in our school. Meanwhile, I can also reach out to my community through my parent's friends and connections. This is what I have in front of me in terms of my lobbying topic. 

Jason Davis and I decided to take on the task of filing for welfare, specifically cash and food assistance. In order to qualify for either of these, everyone in the household must be a citizen or at least allowed in the country as a permanent resident and have a social security number. Also, you need to show that you are either employed or are trying to be employed. Then, it all comes down to how much assistance you qualify for, which depends on your total income and how many dependents and disables are in the household. Welfare is only a temporary assistance, and before you are given any assistance you must fill out paperwork showing that you will work towards sustaining yourself after the welfare has run out. When trying to go through this task of learning about the process and making the flowchart, Jason and I focused on the paperwork at first. As soon as we realized that the paperwork doesn't actually explain anything clearly, I went digging into the website for Pennsylvania welfare and benefits. I found lists of the qualifications of the different types of welfare, and I went about connecting them. So, we finalized the flowchart and just finished up the paperwork. 

If anything, the paperwork was pretty straightforward, but tedious. It was all the expected questions about your demographics and your income. But, the only way you could really fill out this paperwork is if you had all your information in front of you on your utilities, health issuance, and information on every person in your household you are applying for. However, the paper work did come with explanation pages that outline certain information (which is why there seemed to be SO MUCH paperwork). If I really wanted to apply for welfare, going through the process of getting all that information and making sure it was all accurate would have taken a lot of resources. 

The most confusing part of this whole process is determining what kind of welfare you qualify for. Jason and I looked at the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families because our made-up person had a family with children. However, there is also General Assistance, and depending on how you stand with TANF and GA, you get certain benefits in food assistance (SNAP). If you don't qualify for TANF, you may qualify for GA. But, it doesn't make it exactly clear where the line is drawn. I figured out that the difference usually is that if the only reason you do not qualify for TANF is if you do not have any dependents or if it is because you are in certain circumstances where you cannot work (for a good reason), you could qualify for GA. It really isn't clear, so you would have to apply for both and just wait and see what you get. It was really frustrating. It needs to become more clear for people as to what they should actually apply for. 

So what have these systems become so frustrating and complex? I'm almost certain people went a little crazy with the "What if?" game. Going through the original paperwork, they might have seen a certain part and thought "What if this person is in the situation?" Obviously that part needed to change so it fit the needs of everyone applying. However, the people never went back into the systems after the What If game was played to see if they could simplify or make the different paths more distinct and clear. 

                The Fair Elections Now Act was reintroduced on April 6, 2011 by Senator Dick Durbin in the Senate and then by Representatives John Larson, Walter Jones, and Chellie Pingree in the House of Representatives. This reintroduction got a lot of media attention by the 7^th, and on April 12, the bill was brought before the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Senator Durbin and other sponsors of the bill believe it is a comprehensive response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission in 2010. This ruling in this case and in previous cases dealing with similar issues set back finance reform because they agreed that putting a limitation on contributions such as in ads and donations from corporations to candidates hinders their “political free speech.” However, the Fair Elections Now Act would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act so that there would be a public fund set aside for candidates to use in elections. Therefore, neither the “free speech” of corporations and lobbyists hindered nor are politicians that cannot afford to run their own campaign forced to use money from these contributors. Some trust could be restored into politics because disclosure still stands under FECA, and now we would have candidates that will choose not to rely on lobbyists. Under the public eye, these candidates would be the most trustworthy. Therefore, more candidates that wish to gain public favor would use as much public funds as they can. All in all, the election process would just be that much cleaner because a candidate would not be forced to get dirty. So, how are the politicians taking this bill?

                Well, this is not the first time the bill has been introduced. The first time around, it just got pushed around and never really got passed. This time, it garnered more media attention with its reintroduction and more government support. There are currently 13 co-sponsors in the Senate, and 78 co-sponsors in the House working for this bill. Since its introduction, there has been progress in the form of hundreds of messages have been sent to Congress, letters have been written to the newspapers, and there are over 12,500 citizen co-sponsors for the bill. However, there has not been any support from candidates. Also, in recent months, this particular bill has cooled down. It has still not been passed into law. There aren’t any upcoming meetings or dates involving the Fair Elections Now Act. Some fear that once again the bill is just going to sit in committee and never get passed. Maybe if more Republican Senators and Representatives also paid it attention, more could be done with. However, what this bill really needs – and what finance reform needs in general – is bigger government support. I’m not talking about more Senators and Representatives stepping in, I mean that more influential people need to step up. Senator John McCain has been a long-time supporter of campaign finance reform. In fact, after the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs. FEC, he did predict a backlash from the public once they realized just how much money lobbyists could control in government. But, where is he on this bill? He isn’t one of the main supporters, that’s for sure. He actually dared to say that campaign finance reform is dead. But, that's only because people like him stopped fighting for it. If bigger name politicians spoke on this bill, whether in support or disagreement, it would at least get more media attention. I highly doubt the public is even aware that a public fund option is even possible in elections.

                Now, I’m not saying we want to drag Obama into this particular bill. He has a lot of big things on his plate that he desperately needs to deal with (the economy, for one). However, he at least needs to have a more noticeable position on the subject. How can campaign finance reform get started if even the president doesn’t pay enough attention? You want to know why this year is a perfect year to get this reform going? There are the Republican primaries and soon there will be the next Presidential election. Any candidate that takes the plunge in public funding and avoids corporation contributions will shine brighter in the public eye. Occupy Wall Street has been going strong for weeks now, and although the protestors are being forced to move, you can bet the sentiment is still there. People want government to clean up. They’re tired of 1% of the population having all the money and power, and using that money and power in government. It is a little sad that there have been a number of Occupy demonstrations in Philadelphia, yet Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey has no connection with finance reform and only Representative Michael Doyle co-sponsors the Fair Elections Now Act. At least a state that deals every day with public frustration towards government would feel a little bit more initiative on reform. These are most likely the men I could most directly influence, but to be honest, the only way anything is going to get done about campaign finance reform is if people are aware of the problems.

I chose the Federal Election Campaign Act for my bill because I had already done some research for it with my lobbying topic assignment. From that research, I knew that the bill was changed multiple times because of a variety of outside influences, so I figured there would be plenty of information to get for my project. As you can probably tell by my 11-minute video, there was indeed plenty of information to cover. I thought that a video would be the best format because I just didn't see a prezi or presentation providing a proper explanation. With topics like this, the best way for me to get the facts out, is if I verbally discuss it. Of course, visual aids would be necessary too. So, a video it was. 

When I started my project, I didn't realize just how much was done to the bill over the decades, and its history started a lot earlier than I thought as well. I had to do a lot of research to figure out all the big and all the really small changes and amendments of the bill. This took more time than I thought it would, and it was little hard to understand some of the court decisions as well. Figuring out the "why" was really the hardest part. But, I was able to figure it out the best I could and managed to put it all into words for my video. If I could do my project differently though, I would make the most changes to my video itself. It's a little dry. Because of problems with my audio, I had to keep re-recording it, and I didn't have time to really put in music or anything like that. Plus, I wanted the slides to be a little bit more animated. I didn't have time for that kind of stuff. Also, it is a longer video than I intended. I probably could have summed up my court cases and my reflection at the end a little better and more concise. Well, at least my viewers will get the information. 

I understood the basics to how a bill became a law, but (especially in my particularly bill) I didn't realize just how much the Supreme Court can play a part in appealing and causing amendments to the laws. I knew about the public opinion aspect and how the political air of the time had a major impact on the laws of the time, and this was definitely true in my law. So, I kind of figured that with this particular law it probably wasn't easy because there would be plenty of people who want to twist their money around in politics. I didn't think they would so much legal standing to just make things difficult for Congress though. 

http://www.academicamerican.com/progressive/topics/progressive.html

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/ID.124/blog_detail.asp

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/11/news/companies/supreme_court_citizens_united.fortune/

http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congress/federal-election-campaign-act

http://www.govexec.com/basics/hatchact.htm

http://thisnation.com/question/004.html  

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/millionaire.shtml

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_969

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_320

http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_M.shtml

http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/000520.html

                Financial reform on election campaigns has been active since 1907. Over the years, different acts were passed in order to regulate and ban certain lobbyist contributions, and these were all consolidated into the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971. However, between 2007 and 2010, there were three cases in which the Federal Election Commission (FEC) was taken to court. On the last case, Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that banning contributions from corporations and lobbyists violated their Constitutional right to “political free speech.” This ruling then led to the DISCLOSURE Act. Now, the question is not whether to ban lobbyist contributions, but how should these contributions be regulated? I researched people in politics that directly represent me about their positions on finance reform and regulation on election campaign contributions. Living in Congressional District 1 of Pennsylvania, I am represented by Representative Robert Brady, Senator Robert Casey Jr., and Senator Patrick Toomey.

                Robert Brady was sworn into office for his 8^th term representing Pennsylvania’s First Congressional District on January 5, 2011. He is a Democrat, born and raised in Philadelphia, and graduated from St. Thomas High School. He currently serves as Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, helping to lead the Committee’s oversight of federal elections and budget authorizations for expenses of House committees. He has consistently advocated for legislation that supports the well-being of financially disadvantaged communities. So, how has he voted in the past on financial reform on election campaign contributions? Over the years, he has consistently voted in favor of regulation on lobbyist contributions and soft money. He voted yes on campaign reform banning soft-money contributions and on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations, helping to clear up some of secrecy that goes on with campaign contributions. He also supported criminalizing false or deceptive information about elections. This is helpful to me since it seems as though, despite having accepted contributions from several individuals along with corporations and lobbyist groups, Representative Brady is in favor of at least regulating these contributions and making sure they are fair and lawful.

                Robert Casey Jr. is  Democrat, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and  joined the Senate in 2007. Since becoming a Senator, Senator Casey has definitely been focused on the people. He has consistently worked to help turn around the economic crisis, and voted on tax cuts to help businesses hire more employees. He has also worked on several areas of reform such as Health Care reform. And, such as with Rep. Brady, Senator Casey voted yes on requiring more public lobbyist financial disclosure. He has also accepted lobbyist contributions in past and was quoted as saying, “I’ve accepted money from lobbyists. The question is what impact does that money have on our vote. Everyone who knows me knows that I’m very independent. I’ll be focused on needs of Pennsylvanians – not special interests in D.C.” This statement and his vote for more lobbyist disclosure leads me to believe that his position is the same as Rep. Brady in the sense that supports regulation on lobbyist contributions. He believes that the money should not get in the way of what people in government vote and decide on.

                Patrick Toomey serves along side Senator Casey and is a Republican. Unlike Senator Casey and Rep. Brady, Senator Toomey was not born in Pennsylvania, but Rhode Island instead. He just joined the Senate this January, and I can actually remember his several campaign commercials that aired during his election process. He has taken a position in favor of restoring fiscal discipline to Washington and economic opportunity for all Americans and has worked for such position. However, his position of federal election campaign contribution reform has not been as consistent. In September of 1999, he was against banning soft money and issue ads. Then, in July of 2001, he voted yes of banning soft money donations to national political parties. But, voted against just that in February of 2002. So, it is a little hard to tell where Senator Toomey is coming from. He, too, has accepted contributions from corporations and lobbyists, along with my other representatives. Senator Toomey still requires a little more looking into.

                So, based off of this information I have gathered on my three representatives, Rep. Brady and Senator Casey seem to be the ones I should contact and discuss further on regulation on lobbyist contributions in government. Rep. Brady, being from Philadelphia, seems to have the background most in common with myself, though Senator Casey does not seem to be all that much different. I would probably only contact Senator Toomey just to understand his most current position on regulations, though I will not focus a little less on him. All in all, Representative Brady seems to be my closest bet in favor of my lobbying case.  

California spends more than $41 billion a year on the Medicaid Program (Medi-Cal), and it takes up approximately 13% of the state’s budget. However, California Legislature approved reimbursements cuts in 2008 and 2009 because of the worsening financial crisis. These cuts were between 1% and 10%. So, if looked at under the Supremacy Clause, these reimbursements violated the requirements of the Medicaid law of 1965 that state payments remain “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and overall sufficient for medical professionals. So, hospitals, unions, and organizations sued.

When the case of whether or not the state can even be sued in the first place reached the Supreme Court on October 3^rd, 2011, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that if hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits come into the Court saying that the states are not following federal law, then the federal agencies responsible for enforcing these laws will be too overwhelmed with cases to do their “business.” He was quoted as saying, “It’s a mass, in other words.” This is why the Court wants to take a new look at this process of lawsuits because they believe that there will be simply too many to handle. The lawyer for California Medicaid patients and care providers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that he was not fighting for this kind of expansion of litigation, however. He pushed that his intention was to only make sure that people had the right to fight to make sure that federal supremacy is maintained and their “life or death” benefits were safe. He also made the pint that federal courts have been hearing and deciding these cases for generations. However, the Court found merit in what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was saying about Medicaid being different since it was a joint enterprise managed by administrative agencies, not the courts. He also argued that he was only trying to make an exception in litigation.

The Supreme Court is not expected to make a ruling until spring of 2012 on this case and the other related cases that were also argued. However, based off of the feeling the court gave (expressed through what I read), there seems to be a good chance that the court may rule against the Medicaid patients and care-givers. They seem to be in favor of making this exception in litigation for this case, which would leave them to depend on federal officials who can only shut off federal funds entirely in this case. I kind of see this as making sense. In this time of economic turmoil and also accessibility of law to citizens, the Courts may just see countless cases like this throughout the United States. By allowed the citizens to sue, the floor will be opened to who knows how many other cases. The courts want to save as much time and energy as possible and keep the system from overflowing. So, while it is in their rights to sue the state for violating federal laws, an exception might just be made by the Supreme Court. 

Our government can say as much as they want that all money is fair game for any candidate to use in anyway they please, because that's true. This is where the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) comes into play. But this handy Act wasn't always as restricting as it is now in 2011. Before 1974, it was perfectly okay for corporations and groups to fund election campaigns, and most candidates took as much as they could, such as Richard M. Nixon. One of the most notorious presidents in American history, Nixon was funded $2.8 million by issuance executive W. Clement Stone during his re-election campaign. Of course, after the Watergate scandal, Congress needed to spring into action to help reform the trust and confidence of the public. What's one thing they choose to do? Reform private financing for election campaigns. 

So, much to some candidates disappointment I'm certain, the FECA was amended. Now, corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors, and foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to election campaigns. Also, in federal campaigns, a contributor may not make a contributions in another's name or place a donation of more than $100. For the rest of the contributors (individuals, national parties, political committees, etc) there are several contribution limits they have to follow. 

Alright, so what's my problem? Everything seems all hunky-dory now, right? Nope. The FECA still has its loopholes, the most important being soft money. While corporations and lobbyists can't make contributions to and individual candidate, they can put funds into the political party finances. The candidates then take the necessary funds from these finances. So, there is basically just a middle-man in the situation now, but the candidates will still get their money. But wait, political parties and candidates need to disclose where they get their contributions according to FECA. Well, of course they do - to the federal government. When was the last time you actually heard a candidate openly list all their sources of money in a speech? That would be ridiculous. Some voters may actually connect some dots along the money trail. 

So, while some people are completely open to their opinions and even have valid points about "stupid voters," but its the tricky politicians at work, too. This is why I propose we put a lock on donations. Why is it okay for Sarah Palin to ask donations from her supporters during a time of desperate economics times just so she can think about running for president? Seriously? Corporations need to get their little noses out of elections altogether. In the state our country is in, the last thing candidates need to be doing is spending millions of dollars to just bash their opponents on TV. It isn't' even fair since the people from the smaller political parties won't get the same kind of funding as the larger ones for the campaigns. No one will hear the little guy when the big guy is shouting at the top of his lungs. There is currently a Bill pending, Fair Elections Now Act. This basically calls for fair political funding to help gain public confidence in a time of government distress. It speaks of a government funding pool that will take away the power of big donors and better control private funding by putting more weight on public funding. So, who supports this Bill? Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Walter Jones are all for it, saying that more time desperately needs to spent on fixing the issues than raising more money for advertisements. Common Cause is a group that is majorly pushing for the Bill to be passed. Of course, there are many candidates currently running for office such as Rick Perry that have no problem with private funding and corporations to help with their election campaigns to push along their career. So, the question is, what do the voters want to see?  

FATHER McENROE

Me llamo Father McEnroe. La juventud me pasó, y ahora soy un hombre viejo. He trabajado como el cura y el principal de un colegio por tres años. En mi escuela, no le importa quien eres. Si quería trabajar, se puede ir aquí. Por eso, soy un izquierdista orgulloso. También, soy un igualitario. Creo que una persona debe ser juzgado por su mérito y no por cuanto dinero tiene. Es ridículo que una persona piense que es mejor de un otro solo porque de su situación social. Pero, hay muchas personas en mi comunidad que no están de acuerdo con eso. Hay muchos que no les gusta la sistema socialista en Chile, como los momios y la militaría. La militaría y los Estados Unidos tuvieron un golpe de estado y Presidente Allende se suicidó. Es un tiempo cruel para los niños porque están en la medía de la tragedia que es una guerra entre de dos de la misma gente. Es un tiempo muy triste para mi gente.      

La película "Mar Adentro" se trata de la vida de un tetrapléjico quien se llama Ramón. Veinte ocho años en el pasado, Ramón fue en un accidente de salto y no podría moverse no más. Ahora, él quiere quitarse la vida porque Ramón cree que su vida no tiene la dignidad, pero la ley de España dice que es un crimen para una otra persona ayudarle. Así, una abogada, Julia, intenta ayudar Ramón con la sistema legal. Sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, su familia y amigos están en contra de su decisión. En en final, Ramón no gana su caso, pues su amiga, Rosa, ayudarle con su decisión de quitarse su vida y él se murió.

Esa película era muy controversial porque de todos los temas que fue discutidos en la película. En general, la película discutió la vida y la muerta. ¿Es el suicido bueno y es suicidio auxiliar legal? ¿Tiene una persona el derecho de elegir la vida o la muerte? Básicamente, ¿puede una persona juzga el valor de su vida? El mayor razón que Razón tiene para quitarse su vida fue que su vida no tiene dignidad, ¿pero que hace una vida digna? Aun la religión hizo una parte en la película. Las personas que están mirando la película vería los acciones de los caracteres y los hechos de la película y elegiría un lado en los temas. Además, durante la película, personas podría cambiar sus opiniones mientras que mirar.  

Estoy de acuerdo con la decisión de Ramón. Para mi, la vida es un derecho. No es un privilegio porque nadie preguntó vivir. No era un opción. Que personas hacen en sus vidas es que ellos quieren hacer.  Pues, porque la vida es un derecho, la muerte debe ser un derecho también. Entonces, Ramon tiene razón. Él era completamente lucido y seguro con su decisión. Era desafortunado que otros intentaron imponer sus creencias a Ramón y entiendo que eso se enojó él. No era justo que otros le juzgaron. Si, su vida no va tener nada positivo y bueno, ¿porque continuar con esa vida? Puede dañar los seres queridos, pero es la verdad.

Me gustó todos las delicadezas de la película. Hacen la película parece real. No había clichés en la película, y cosas no pasaron perfectamente. Por otro lado, sin embargo, el final me frustró. No quise Rosa ser la ayudante de Ramón. Opino que Rosa solo se ayudó porque quiso probar su "amor" a Ramón, pero ella no le amó en realidad. Además, no me gustó que la película terminó con Julia. Ella me enojó porque era una cobarde y después de ella abandonó a Ramón, no había ninguna parte en la película para ella. Aunque, en total, la película era conmovedora y deprimente. Era una buen tragedia.