The Underground Economy

            The underground economy is a system in which those who can not find a full-time or regular job are paid under the table.  This way they do not report their income and therefore have no taxes to pay on it.  There are positives and negatives to this system.  A positive to this system is an increase in consumer spending, however, this is only a short term effect.  Because people  gain more money through the underground economy, more money goes back into the system, "boosting the economy" (Koba).  A negative to this system is that this system is often associated with dangerous illegal activities.  "Drug dealing" (Koba) is a main way of making money through the underground economy.  This economy is very well known and because it is growing, it is becoming more and more clear that there is a need for change in our regular every day economy.  This is one effect that is negative because it shows us what is is wrong with the economy but also very helpful when trying to determine how our economic system today needs to change.  

Net Neutrality

          Net neutrality is a current controversial topic of discussion.  The idea of net neutrality is that all internet traffic should be treated equally.  It 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" (www.dig.csail.mit.edu).  It is important to both corporations and consumers.  Corporations would benefit from this because they could charge clients for going on certain sites and partly control your internet access.  Net neutrality is important for the consumers because most believe that corporations such as Comcast and Verizon should not have control over internet traffic.  The FCC controls the neutrality of the internet with the Open Internet Order.  It was created in 2010 to "prevent broadband Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on the Web" (http://www.savetheinternet.com).  The order prevents wired ISPs from blocking and discriminating against content on the internet.

Spoils System Vs. Merit System

          The "spoils system" played a major role in our government for a long period of time and was eventually replaced by the merit system.  Basically, the "spoils system" was a system in our government that hired employees based on their political connections and the merit system is an arrangement where people are hired based on their ability to perform a job.  Andrew Jackson, the seventh president, is credited with starting the "spoils system" because he gave it it's name after John Quincy Adams gained his presidency through what is known as the "corrupt bargain" today.  Henry Clay, who was also a candidate for President and a member of the House, threw his support to John Quincy Adams and was subsequently appointed Secretary of State by Adams.  Andrew Jackson and his supporters were infuriated by this clear act of quid pro quo.  The Spoils System was formally ended  when President James Garfield was assasinated by an upset office seeker who was denied an appointment and subsequently took revenge against Garfield.  The act that ended this "spoils system" was the Pendelton Act of 1883, which also created the merit system.  The president could now only hand out a certain amount of jobs that must be approved by the senate. 
          The "spoils system" is still in our government today.  An example of this could be something like the amount of money raised by Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown to get elected as the Massachusetts State senators.  Together they raised seventy million dollars (open secrets.org).  This shows how people in our government are still hired based on their status rather than their ability to perform a certain job.  In my opinion, the "spoils system" will most likely never vanish completely. 

Riley Vs. California

          I believe it is necessary for the police to obtain a warrant before searching through a person's cell phone, therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. In cases of emergency such as "finding a ticking bomb or a kidnapped child" (Smith 17), I believe a warrantless search is acceptable because lives are at stake. Many people have very personal conversations on their cell phones, which is why it is important for there to be solid evidence suggesting there is something incriminating on the cell phone before searching it. According to the article, these electronic devices "hold the most intimate details of a person's life" (Smith 17), therefore, they should be protected.
Even though the writers of the Fourth Amendment were not expecting such devices such as smart phones, tablets, and laptops, all of the Supreme Court justices agree that the devices fall under the amendment. Because the police did not have permission, the nine justices ruled that "they violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy" (Smith 15). Most would agree that cell phones should be included in our right to privacy. Many people keep their most private information, such as personal conversations, photos, and bank records on their cell phones. Today rather than jotting down notes on a piece of paper, the average person could more than likely store that information in their cell phone. Because of their easy accessibility, they have just become a common keepsake for most information. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Argues that just because "technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand, does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought" (Smith 16). Cell phones also provide information like where exactly a person was at a certain date and time. Because of all the private information stored on a person's cell phone, I believe the devices should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, meaning a warrant must be given before they are searched.

Time Capsule Unearthed from 1795

            On Thursday, December 11, a time capsule was discovered from underneath the State House building in Boston Massachusetts.  Works came across it while attempting to repair a water leak.  The capsule was buried by Paul Revere and Samuel Adams in 1795 when Adams was the governor.  It was originally put there when they began construction on the State House's iconic dome.  As soon as the workers fixing the leak stumbled upon it, the Secretary of State William Galvin, who happens to be the head of the state historical commission, contacted Pamela Hatchfield, the head of object conservation at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.  The was controversy on whether or not the box should be removed from where it was buried, which was a barricade of stone.  The decision was to try to carefully chip away at the stone to see if the box was fully intact and if it was, to hopefully remove it.  After seven hours were spent trying to extricate the capsule, it was finally removed.  The contents are of concern due to time and other obvious reasons, however, the plaster surrounding the container was in good condition.  In the box, there is believed to be several coins and a plaque inscribed by Paul Revere.  Other contents are expected be found inside as well. Even though the capsule has not been opened yet, it has been x-rayed.  It is expected to be opened over the next week or so.

            I believe this is related to American Government because the contents were put there by people who had a huge say in the founding of our government.  People who were of the first in our nation thought that what ever was in that box was important enough to be locked away and discovered at some point in the future after they were long gone.  There could be words written that change the way we look at government or statements that affirm the way our Founding Fathers and earliest Patriots wanted government to be.  There was some dissuasion on what should be done with the capsule after it is opened and such.  As of yet, the decision is to rebury it and possibly add objects to it.  I admit this happening was not exactly an issue but an interesting, semi-controvertial situation that I believe was handled in an appropriate way by everyone involved including the press. 

The Electoral College

          The Electoral College was created for a number of reasons.  One reason is because there was a fear of factions in the United States.  The electoral college would prevent the largest faction or group from being able to rule unfairly.  The Electoral College also protects those with money and power, which tend to be the fewer.  In short, a main reason it was created was the fact that our forefathers feared the large masses of poor and for the security of private property.  The Electoral College allows the federals and the states to run the elections.  This is an example of indirect democracy, which protects the elite from the poor.  I believe that this system was fair for the time period (1787) it was designed for because then, most of the elite and powerful were those who were the most educated.  It is clear that times have changed and for the time period we are in now, I think it is a bit unfair.  People today realize that brilliance can come from anywhere and a great amount of money is not necessarily needed to become well educated.  The Electoral College has failed on numerous occasions, one of them being in 1800.  The Democratic-Republican electors gave both Thomas JEfferson and Aaron Burr an equal number of Electoral votes.  Because it was a tie, it had to be settled in the House of Representatives, which eventually came in Jefferson's favor.  Because of this failure in the system, the twelfth amendment was made to prevent a tie from ever happening again.

Head of State: Satires and the Evolution of Gilliam

         
          The movie Head of State makes a comedic attack on an electoral system where candidates don't say what they actually  think but simply repeat safe centrist platitudes.  This movie satirizes the nature of political parties in many ways such as the way the campaigns are run and what is said to each party to gain votes.  The candidates mainly only say what their party wants to hear in order to be elected, not exactly what they believe.  It also satirizes how a candidate may pretend to care about topics on camera and when off camera, he couldn't care less.  For example when on camera, Brian Lewis gave a small speech about how important the children are and their safety is but off camera, it was easy to tell he was faking his interest.  This movie shows how people don't always know as much as they think they know when it comes to what is going on behind the scenes in politics.

          Mays Gilliam evolves greatly throughout his candidacy.  He begins his campaign very unaware of the power he holds and  only saying what he is told to say by his advisors/campaign managers.  He is told exactly what to say and how to say it.  It is clear that he doesn't understand that he also has a voice and can use this opportunity to make the kind of differences he wishes to.  After a talk with his brother Gilliam starts to realize that he can voice his own opinions and make a difference in the county that he believes in.  As he visits more states, he gets into the grove of how to run his own campaign.  Gilliam really begins taking over and coming up with his own ideas and stratagies after learning that his advisors didn't actually believe in him.  He starts saying the things that he truly believes in and what most of the population believes in also.  Once Gilliam does this, he gains more and more votes until he eventually wins the election.