Cartoon #5: Uncle Sam to Porto Rico: “And to think, that bad boy came near being your brother!”
The person named Cuba is dressed in a straw hat with smoking guns and a safe with debt pouring out- everything that is bad that’s associated with cuba is portrayed on or around this black man. Uncle Sam and Puerto Rico is standing across the street watching Cuba run away. Uncle Sam is holding Peutro Rico's hand as if to guide it to the ideal country that it can become.
Cartoon #2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture Uncle Sam After the War
Uncle Sam is standing while The Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico climb all over him. This is showing how the United States want to take over these countries by spreading their beliefs and annexing them. Hawaii is sitting on the ground playing with something with a patient look on the childs face. Uncle Sam's facial expression is very stern. I'm not sure if he is mad at the children on annoying at the fact that they are playing with him.
Notes from class:
1: The Cuban Melodrama: The Noble Hero to the Heavy Villain
1896
Female begging for help from the U.S.- Cuba portrayed as weak
Spanish- the villain
Exaggeration
2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture the U.S. After The War
1989
Cuba
Toddler- pain in the neck- annoying- young, in need of help
Irony- children needing help
labeling
3: Miss CUBA receives an invitation. Miss COLUMBIA (to her neighbor): Won’t you join the stars and stripes and by my fourty- sixth?
1901
Pretty young girl- tall, patriotic, standing strong
Columbia- refers to united states
Columbia- dressed in formal attire (nice, expensive, clean)- Cuba looks like “native”
4: After the first Mile. Cleveland Leader.
1903
Looks like an African American
Making fun of Cuba
Largest cane sugar crob
Public schools increase
More schools and making money
Americans are abusing them- everything Cuba does benefits the Americans- but Cuba thinks its benefitting them
Negative view of Cuba
5: Uncle Sam to Puerto Rico: And to think that Bad Boy became your big brother
1905
Cuba running away from U.S.
Debt following Cuba
Cuba- uncivilized look
Bad boy
Compared to Puerto Rico
Bandit
Peurto rico v. Uncle Sam height- uncle sam has power over Puerto rico
Monday, September 21, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Alphabet Soup Article- NPR
In other words, is the complicated legislative process we've created in this country more responsible for outcomes than the desires of the majority?
I think that there is a need for a complicated legislative process. Democracy is not just simple. If government in the United States was simple, the governemnt would be a monarchy instead of a democracy. Since I've esatbalished the 1st grade, simple reason that the legislative process is complicated, I can now answer the question. I think that because the lesilative process is so complicated the outcomes are definitely a majority over the desires. Just because the consitutents want the government to pass regualtions on a certain industry or pass a bill on health care, that doesn't necesarily mean that the regualtion or bill will get passed. The legislative process calls for a lot of compromises and has lots of shortcomings. Since the proposal for something has to go through this long, complicated, dissection- called the leglative process, I feel that most of the desires are stripped and the outcome is determined by whose pocket wins the battle. The people though, I feel, only have a small amount of room to complain because they vote the people into these positions to govern over the legislative process. Maybe for there to be actual change in government, there needs to be a change in the process.
I think that there is a need for a complicated legislative process. Democracy is not just simple. If government in the United States was simple, the governemnt would be a monarchy instead of a democracy. Since I've esatbalished the 1st grade, simple reason that the legislative process is complicated, I can now answer the question. I think that because the lesilative process is so complicated the outcomes are definitely a majority over the desires. Just because the consitutents want the government to pass regualtions on a certain industry or pass a bill on health care, that doesn't necesarily mean that the regualtion or bill will get passed. The legislative process calls for a lot of compromises and has lots of shortcomings. Since the proposal for something has to go through this long, complicated, dissection- called the leglative process, I feel that most of the desires are stripped and the outcome is determined by whose pocket wins the battle. The people though, I feel, only have a small amount of room to complain because they vote the people into these positions to govern over the legislative process. Maybe for there to be actual change in government, there needs to be a change in the process.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Party Animals
I think that the article represents Chris Matthews’ “It’s Not Who You Know, It’s Who You Get to Know” perfectly because it shows almost a hypothetical place listing. If a person is at the top of a list of “democratic party animals”, it means they are getting around Washington, and getting their name out. The more people you know, the more ahead you a person can get in the game of politics and Politico’s list helps the people to gauge where they are and where the need to be. It’s almost as if the list is a report card to the politicians. The politicians host and attend these parties as way to network with all of the important people on Capitol Hill. Networking is the modern term of "It's Not Who You Know, It's Who You Get To Know".
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
rough draft= final draft?
There are a few quotes that I would like to bring up reguarding the Address to Congress.
The first:
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government".
While this quote sounds amazing, and the "ideal plan" for the country, I don't think it will exactly work out that way. Sure, there will be security from insurance carriers dropping you and that will cause stability, but what I want to know is: how will this be paid for? As seen in After the Fact's USDA article, just because a bill starts out one way, there is no indication that a bill will end up that way because during the "process" that a bill must go throguh in the Senate and then House, when there is always the ability to make changes to the bill. The question is how many changes there will be.
Providing insurance to people who don't have it is a great idea, but there is a reason that people who don't have insurance now- dont have it. Take illegal immigrants for instance, they don't have insurance becuase one, they can't afford it, and two if they applied for insurance, they would obviously have to show proof of citizenship. Since the taxpayers are the people who have to pay for the insurance under this new, united health care plan (mainly the middle class tax payers) I don't feel, being a citizen of the middle class, that I, who has a job and does pay taxes, should have to pay for these people who are here illegally and don't contribute to the 'pot' of money that the funding for insurance would be coming out of. 1. I dont think there will be enough funds under the current plan to support it and 2. the illegal immigrant numbers will rise- since there is no control over the borders- causing taxes to rise and eventually taxpayers will not make enough money after taxes to be able to do anything else other than pay taxes. Now, I do realize that illegal immigrants aren't the only people who don't have insurance, and they are not indiviually responsible for these problems, but I do use them as an example to strengthen my arugment.
What I dont understand is the last sentence in the quote. If costs are supposed to drop becasue more and more people get on insurance and competition to get the peoples' business causes the prices drop, will this bill or "reform plan" stay how Obama wants it to, or will committees in the House change the bill just as committees in After the Fact did.
The point that I'm trying to make with the first quote is: this sounds great, in the beginning, but will the final bill that is signed into law actually look like this, or will it be so distorted and changed that it will not resemble this at all?
The second:
"While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance".
This talk of "details" bothers me because these "detials" are not just details, they aren't just detials in a bill that people don't hear about or don't notice in day to day life. These details are the foundation and everything built upon the new health care reform. These details are essential to the reform because the details are the reform. Without explanations and guidelines and everything else included in the bill- the details..., you do not have reform and you do not have a bill. This broad consensus that he speaks of sounds good- but will the broad consensus now be the same consensus after the bill is passed? This exchange that allows indivuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, will coverage actually be affordable to people under the final version of the bill. Will the small businesses have more interference from the government? Will small businesses get more attention from the government under this new bill? Will insurance be required to non-American citizens as well as American citizens. Will the government change thier views on what consitutes an American citizen all because they want every individual to have health insurance.
Everything Obama talks about sounds wonderful, but the question is how is he going to pay for it, who exactly will be required to have insurance, and once again- will the final bill resemble the rough draft of the bill that he wants to pass now?
The third:
"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years".
Once again, and i feel as though im beating a horse dead by now. This is what Obama says that he is proposing, but just because the president proposes something, doesnt meant that the Senate and then House will agree with the bill. The other politicians might want to change the cost to more or less or even add to the deficit even though Obama claims that he won't.
To conclude, the point that I'm trying to make is this: Everything said in Obama's speech is what Obama wants. Just because Obama wants something passed into law doesn't mean that it will be. I am not convinced because there are too many shades of gray, too many things that haven't been yet worked out in Congress. There are too many questions, more than I have asked in this entry, that have not yet been answered. So I leave you with this question:
Will the final draft, the law that is passed look anything like the one Obama wants, the rough draft?
The first:
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government".
While this quote sounds amazing, and the "ideal plan" for the country, I don't think it will exactly work out that way. Sure, there will be security from insurance carriers dropping you and that will cause stability, but what I want to know is: how will this be paid for? As seen in After the Fact's USDA article, just because a bill starts out one way, there is no indication that a bill will end up that way because during the "process" that a bill must go throguh in the Senate and then House, when there is always the ability to make changes to the bill. The question is how many changes there will be.
Providing insurance to people who don't have it is a great idea, but there is a reason that people who don't have insurance now- dont have it. Take illegal immigrants for instance, they don't have insurance becuase one, they can't afford it, and two if they applied for insurance, they would obviously have to show proof of citizenship. Since the taxpayers are the people who have to pay for the insurance under this new, united health care plan (mainly the middle class tax payers) I don't feel, being a citizen of the middle class, that I, who has a job and does pay taxes, should have to pay for these people who are here illegally and don't contribute to the 'pot' of money that the funding for insurance would be coming out of. 1. I dont think there will be enough funds under the current plan to support it and 2. the illegal immigrant numbers will rise- since there is no control over the borders- causing taxes to rise and eventually taxpayers will not make enough money after taxes to be able to do anything else other than pay taxes. Now, I do realize that illegal immigrants aren't the only people who don't have insurance, and they are not indiviually responsible for these problems, but I do use them as an example to strengthen my arugment.
What I dont understand is the last sentence in the quote. If costs are supposed to drop becasue more and more people get on insurance and competition to get the peoples' business causes the prices drop, will this bill or "reform plan" stay how Obama wants it to, or will committees in the House change the bill just as committees in After the Fact did.
The point that I'm trying to make with the first quote is: this sounds great, in the beginning, but will the final bill that is signed into law actually look like this, or will it be so distorted and changed that it will not resemble this at all?
The second:
"While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance".
This talk of "details" bothers me because these "detials" are not just details, they aren't just detials in a bill that people don't hear about or don't notice in day to day life. These details are the foundation and everything built upon the new health care reform. These details are essential to the reform because the details are the reform. Without explanations and guidelines and everything else included in the bill- the details..., you do not have reform and you do not have a bill. This broad consensus that he speaks of sounds good- but will the broad consensus now be the same consensus after the bill is passed? This exchange that allows indivuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, will coverage actually be affordable to people under the final version of the bill. Will the small businesses have more interference from the government? Will small businesses get more attention from the government under this new bill? Will insurance be required to non-American citizens as well as American citizens. Will the government change thier views on what consitutes an American citizen all because they want every individual to have health insurance.
Everything Obama talks about sounds wonderful, but the question is how is he going to pay for it, who exactly will be required to have insurance, and once again- will the final bill resemble the rough draft of the bill that he wants to pass now?
The third:
"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years".
Once again, and i feel as though im beating a horse dead by now. This is what Obama says that he is proposing, but just because the president proposes something, doesnt meant that the Senate and then House will agree with the bill. The other politicians might want to change the cost to more or less or even add to the deficit even though Obama claims that he won't.
To conclude, the point that I'm trying to make is this: Everything said in Obama's speech is what Obama wants. Just because Obama wants something passed into law doesn't mean that it will be. I am not convinced because there are too many shades of gray, too many things that haven't been yet worked out in Congress. There are too many questions, more than I have asked in this entry, that have not yet been answered. So I leave you with this question:
Will the final draft, the law that is passed look anything like the one Obama wants, the rough draft?
Current Events
To add to the recent post of the quotes from After the Fact's USDA article, I would just like to make a side entry. I would like to point out an excerpt from my second quote "The legislative process is so contituted that willful minorities can sometimes thrawrt the will of determined majorities". Now, just like then, the president cannot get his way with a certain bill just because it's what he wants. Obama is facing a similar situation, just as Roosevelte was in 1906. Obama wants to pass the Health Care bill, but he has seen a lot of dissent from the consitituents all around the United States.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
USDA Government Inspected
‘Use everything… “except the squeal” ’
This quote, I think shows the motivation and reason why Davidson and Lytle wrote this article. This quote shows the meat packers disregard for the public’s health. Using everything but the squeal means that they used every single piece of the pig. This is disgusting because there are parts of a pig that shouldn’t be used for consumption by humans. I think the quote showcases just how bad the meat packing industry was and how badly reform was needed. Armour and Swift, in my opinion and were sadistic comics because there isn’t anything funny, to me at least, in saying that they used every single square inch of the pig. Even though I’m not a swine expert, I’m pretty sure the pig, just like any other animal, has some parts of their body that are not fit for human consumption. Most of the reformers, though, were not focused on just the issue of the Meat Packing industry. The reformers, thought wanting to make conditions in the meat packing industry better, were focused on the big picture, the sanitation conditions. The bigger picture was what everyone was fighting for.
“And historians, for their part, must trace a path through the congressional maze in order to see what compromises and deals shaped the final bill. The legislative process is so constituted that willful minorities can sometimes thwart the will of determined majorities”.
This quote, which I feel is their thesis, shows how historians must trace the history of an occurrence to figure out how a bill is shaped and passed. This whole article shows how reformed wanted change, but had to fight for it. This article was excellently written to show how the United States government works and this quote summarizes the article perfectly. In the United States, bills cannot be signed into laws just because the president, Theodore Roosevelt, wants them to. The president, just like Wadsworth and Lormier has to abide by the same rules that fall under the legislative process. The minorities in the quote, talks about were the few people, such and Wadsworth and Lormier who supported the meat packing industry and claimed that nothing was wrong with it. The majority (ies), obviously the president, are portrayed as they are in the legal system: people who have the take the same steps as the minorities do. The president is not necessarily going to get a bill passed just because he is the president. The job of the historian is to look back into records and see who wanted to make changes to what and if those changes were accepted or turned down by the opposing party or even their own sometimes. Another job is to look at what the bill first began as and see how it is shaped at the end and determine where the changes occurred and why.
This quote, I think shows the motivation and reason why Davidson and Lytle wrote this article. This quote shows the meat packers disregard for the public’s health. Using everything but the squeal means that they used every single piece of the pig. This is disgusting because there are parts of a pig that shouldn’t be used for consumption by humans. I think the quote showcases just how bad the meat packing industry was and how badly reform was needed. Armour and Swift, in my opinion and were sadistic comics because there isn’t anything funny, to me at least, in saying that they used every single square inch of the pig. Even though I’m not a swine expert, I’m pretty sure the pig, just like any other animal, has some parts of their body that are not fit for human consumption. Most of the reformers, though, were not focused on just the issue of the Meat Packing industry. The reformers, thought wanting to make conditions in the meat packing industry better, were focused on the big picture, the sanitation conditions. The bigger picture was what everyone was fighting for.
“And historians, for their part, must trace a path through the congressional maze in order to see what compromises and deals shaped the final bill. The legislative process is so constituted that willful minorities can sometimes thwart the will of determined majorities”.
This quote, which I feel is their thesis, shows how historians must trace the history of an occurrence to figure out how a bill is shaped and passed. This whole article shows how reformed wanted change, but had to fight for it. This article was excellently written to show how the United States government works and this quote summarizes the article perfectly. In the United States, bills cannot be signed into laws just because the president, Theodore Roosevelt, wants them to. The president, just like Wadsworth and Lormier has to abide by the same rules that fall under the legislative process. The minorities in the quote, talks about were the few people, such and Wadsworth and Lormier who supported the meat packing industry and claimed that nothing was wrong with it. The majority (ies), obviously the president, are portrayed as they are in the legal system: people who have the take the same steps as the minorities do. The president is not necessarily going to get a bill passed just because he is the president. The job of the historian is to look back into records and see who wanted to make changes to what and if those changes were accepted or turned down by the opposing party or even their own sometimes. Another job is to look at what the bill first began as and see how it is shaped at the end and determine where the changes occurred and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)