Truman is done (Pending Francis DuVinage edits and becoming a finalist (which is probably doubtful)
GW beat Xavier at Xavier for the first time in 10 years and is in first place in the A-10
And right behind them is a little team called the Billikens in 2nd Place
Who woulda thunk it?
One week..
Okay. I am in Marvin Center, and if I didn’t have my laptop with me, I would have gone back to New Hall just to check my notes for a class’ final I took yesterday out of panic I didn’t answer four of six. I could only think of 3 of the terms I answered. Then I got that inner feeling of panic…I had my laptop, so I scrolled through my notecards, and I found the fourth term I did.
I have a 4 page “final test” due Tuesday.
I have a 5 page paper due Friday.
I have a 20 page (roughly) Final Exam due next Monday.
Other people crank out four page page and five page papers. I can’t. I draft, revise, tweek. I don’t think I have confidence in my “cranking out” ability. However, I was able to crank out a pretty good International Organizations paper in about 2 and a half days work…don’t know the grade yet, but it should be good.
In nine days, Semester Five of College will be over. Only two more of undergraduate left. This semester was not my happiest. By no means am I depressed by it, but the work just sucked a lot of fun out of it. Next semester is not going to be any better. Another, probably harder, grad class. History for major class. Then a normal History and a normal Political Science class. I don’t like the history topic, and for Political Science I am debating between a class with a good professor, good topic, but a lot of reading. Versus alright class, alright professor, little reading.
I will hopefully have a paying internship with the DLCC. The interview for that is Wednesday, but it will be more work and draining than Carnahan.
I have thought about dropping the History major to a minor, but I really don’t want to. I mean, it is not assured that I am going to follow through with the Masters. I am pretty confident that I will, but I don’t want to drop the major if there is any possibility of me not doing the Masters. I am already kicking myself for dropping History of Modern China instead of International Organizations. While having a full time faculty professor is good for Political Science inside baseball at GW, but in terms of classes I like, it would have worked out better if I hadn’t.
One thing that simply frustrates me are some people at GW. I won’t go in depth into this because I do want this little diatribe to be public, but let’s say some of descriptions in the College Rankings/Prospective books are pretty accurate. The hardest thing for me to wrap my mind around at times are other reasons to come to GW than the ones I had. I just struggle with it at times.
In nine days, I get to go home. Then I return 23 days later. Perhaps it will be better because I will know how to handle a Grad class better. Or maybe the people situation will improve. Who knows. Back to reading. Nine days…
Describe the problem or needs of society you want to address when you enter public service. (If possible use statistical data to define the magnitude of the problem)
Newt Gingrich surprisingly has a lot respect from this Bill Clinton idealizer and loyal Democrat. Newt and I don’t see eye to eye on the substance of many issues, but I respect his willingness to take the unpopular stance to do what he sees as right. He has a point in some cases. There is a problem with our education system if the US ranks 18th in education effectiveness while spending more than any other country per student. & Now, I disagree with abolishing the Department of Education, but one must respect his reasoned position. There is a reason his outside the box outlook proved successful in 1994.
Innovation is good for governing. Politicians too often cling to the safe, stale ideas, logrolling to keep their jobs. I suppose a 98% incumbent re-election rate proves their methods work, but the system we have shouldn’t be. Politicians fear being the next Walter Mondale. Not many would suggest running for President proposing higher taxes, but at least he said what he believed the best solution was.
Society needs Gingrich’s and Mondale’s bringing non-mainstream and not necessarily immediately popular views center stage. The public needs to be informed of alternatives, so voters can actually see differences available to them. Political leaders themselves aren’t helpful when in a presidential debate the biggest disagreement between them regarding foreign policy, during a war in Iraq, appears to be whether to approach North Korea multilaterally or bilaterally.
The innovative ideas aren’t always the right ones, but without them there is no debate or progress towards better solutions. Citizens grow apathetic when they don’t see an opportunity for real change. There are reasons why voter turnout has fallen over 10% in the past fifty years.
Choices and opportunities for change need to be made available for progress to happen.
Okay Political Nerds, give me feedback on the following proposal (It is a first draft)
Problem Statement:
The States’ representation on the Federal level of the US government was removed with the passage of the seventeenth amendment to the US Constitution. Thereby, removing “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”
In the previous century, while the State legislatures lost their power over Senate appointments, they were granted influential power, exercised by the redistricting process, over the US House of Representatives during the Reapportionment Revolution of the 1960s. From the end of Reconstruction through 1960, there was an average of 40 seats gained or lost each election by each of the major two parties. This average fell to 16 in the elections from 1962 to 2004. Since the House’s expansion to 435 members and passage of the 17th amendment , the differential, comparative responsiveness between the House and Senate dropped from 3.43% until 1960 to .53% after 1960 . Partially due to political redistricting, the designed democratic responsive nature of the House has diminished.Proposed Solution:
Amend the US Constitution, initiated by “a Convention for proposing Amendments” with the following :
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The seventeenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Should a State divide its Representatives by geographic boundaries, such boundaries are to be created and approved by a majority of an appointed group of persons within each State. This group, of an even number, is to be appointed, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, by the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Section 3. No State shall send a Representative to the House of Representatives if such Representative is not elected in accordance with this amendment.Major Obstacles/Implementation Problems:
Constituent Objections:
Voters likely will respond negatively to the repeal of the constitutionally mandated direct election of Senators. However, the State Legislatures can individually establish this democratic process, as at least 29 states had done prior to the 17th amendment’s adoption. Therefore, they can pressure their state level governments for the reestablishment of the process.
Voters also likely will be wary of Section 3 fearing losing their representation in the US House. However, if their State Legislature cannot come to an agreement upon a successful group, the voters can punish their state legislature via election, which adds incentive for the legislature to come to an agreement.Elected Official Objections:
US House Representatives will probably dislike the actions taken against political redistricting because it will reduce their electoral prospect certainty. However, by going through “a Convention for proposing Amendments”, the House of Representatives is bypassed in the amendment process.
US Senators will likely oppose the amendment because their constituency could change from the voters to the state legislators. While this is unlikely, because of the expected results from voters’ objections, it is a reduced concern because the Senate is also bypassed in the amendment process.
Senators and Representatives could politically pressure state legislators to oppose the Amendment and depress its prospects for passage. However, the state legislators, prominent political figures in their respective states, would most likely benefit from Section 2 as their chances for successfully challenging and winning a US House seat improve. Therefore curbing this pressure.Implementation Problems
The largest implementation problem will likely be in the calling of the Convention, since this has never been done before. However, an agreeable procedure could be established through by deliberation of the Speakers of legislatures.