North Korea rose from the ashes of WW2 and was officially established in 1948. The first president was Kim Il Sung. Sung was succeeded by Kim Jung Il and he by Kim Jung Un. Although they were all called presidents, complete dictator would be a much more fit term. The recent history of North Korea consists mainly of threats of attack, internal propaganda, and extremely limited flow of information. The government has complete control over the entire country and everything is harshly monitored. A large military keeps order throughout the country and enforces the will of the leader. Many people are sent to work internment camps for crimes (especially political ones).
Currently in North Korea, Kim Jung Un is ruling as a young man with no military experience (usually a prerequisite) and he has already committed himself to the same types of propaganda, military threats and harsh leadership that his father used. There have been nuclear threats as well as inner-state threats. The only recent change has been the increase in communication. North Koreans can now use cell phones for communication inside North Korea. Also, illegal smuggling of foreign materials and media is on the rise. Kim Jung Un has executed or removed almost half of his generals since his ascent to power. He has continued the tradition of political imprisonment and doesn't seem to be looking for another way. The western world has deemed Kim Jung Un as "maybe even crazier than his predecessor."
Because of this increase in communication, I believe the state and regime will change--it just depends on when. Now that more and more communication is taking place in North Korea, the leadership can't take it back. More and more people are being exposed to outside media and less and less people are buying into propagandist materials. As this trend continues, it is only a matter of time before the people overthrow the government, or insist on outside intervention. With an increase in communication out of North Korea, more outside entities (human interest groups, foreign nations, etc.) will not only be interested in North Korea, but also be inclined to help the people. Either way, increased communication will end the state of North Korea as we know it today.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/02/a_nation_of_racist_dwarfs.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/13/north-korea-factoids/2078831/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secret-state-of-north-korea/
Monday, January 20, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
Number Ten
a) The fundamental goal of interest groups in the political process is to advocate for their interest. This can come in the form of political support, bills being passed, or even a supporter being elected.
b) The fundamental goal of major political parties is to get their candidates into office so that they can advocate for all of their goals and beliefs.
c) Interest groups support the fundamental goal of political parties in the political process by rallying support for and candidate/policy and by donating money to candidates who support their interests.
d) Interest groups achieve their fundamental goals by giving money to candidates. By giving this money to candidates, interest groups can get leaders into office who support their ideals as well as get the ear of policymakers.
b) The fundamental goal of major political parties is to get their candidates into office so that they can advocate for all of their goals and beliefs.
c) Interest groups support the fundamental goal of political parties in the political process by rallying support for and candidate/policy and by donating money to candidates who support their interests.
d) Interest groups achieve their fundamental goals by giving money to candidates. By giving this money to candidates, interest groups can get leaders into office who support their ideals as well as get the ear of policymakers.
Prompt 9
a) The policy agenda is made up of issues that attract political attention. It is basically the "hot" or debated topics of a time.
b) National media sources often engage in setting the policy agenda. They do this by showing what people care about and covering the "topics of today" which are often what is or becomes the policy agenda.
c) The president tends to have an easier time getting media attention over congress because he is the only one. There are many congressman and only one president making it much more rare and, usually, important when he does something.
d) The difference between the viewing patterns of younger and older aged adults is very simple. The older the person, the more likely they watch nightly news and the younger the person, the less likely. Between 1974 and 2002 there has been a clear general trend towards less viewing. Significantly fewer people watch yet the age trend has remained.
e) Clearly the president's power to influence policy and reach his political objectives by way of mass media has decreased. This decrease has taken place due to a decline of viewership between 1974 and 2002.
b) National media sources often engage in setting the policy agenda. They do this by showing what people care about and covering the "topics of today" which are often what is or becomes the policy agenda.
c) The president tends to have an easier time getting media attention over congress because he is the only one. There are many congressman and only one president making it much more rare and, usually, important when he does something.
d) The difference between the viewing patterns of younger and older aged adults is very simple. The older the person, the more likely they watch nightly news and the younger the person, the less likely. Between 1974 and 2002 there has been a clear general trend towards less viewing. Significantly fewer people watch yet the age trend has remained.
e) Clearly the president's power to influence policy and reach his political objectives by way of mass media has decreased. This decrease has taken place due to a decline of viewership between 1974 and 2002.
Prompt 8
a) Two advantages the majority party in the United States House of Representatives has in lawmaking, above and beyond the numerical advantage that that majority party enjoys in floor voting are the ability to choose the speaker of the house and the ability to control committees. These can help the majority party because they can more easily get bills onto the floor and more easily control the debate once they are there.
b) Two differences between the House and Senate that make it likely that legislation may pass in one chamber but not in the other are the limits on debate in the house but not the senate and the fact that a bill needs a rule in the house but not the senate.
c) Because the Senate has no debate time limit, a bill can be filibustered to death in the senate but not in the house. In the house, the rules committee can kill a bill by not allowing it to even get to the floor.
b) Two differences between the House and Senate that make it likely that legislation may pass in one chamber but not in the other are the limits on debate in the house but not the senate and the fact that a bill needs a rule in the house but not the senate.
c) Because the Senate has no debate time limit, a bill can be filibustered to death in the senate but not in the house. In the house, the rules committee can kill a bill by not allowing it to even get to the floor.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Limiting Independent Expenditures
Independent expenditures are contributions made by people to campaigns. Proponents of limiting independent expenditures assert that having no limit gives wealthier politicians and politicians with wealthier supporters, who are not necessarily the best candidates, an advantage over less affluent candidates. Opponents of limiting independent expenditures argue that because candidates are giving money to something they believe in, they are simply exercising their right to free speech and right to spread their own opinions.
Raising Limits on Individual Contributions
Individual contributions are the contributions made by people or corps to political campaigns. Over the years the limit has been raised. Proponents of raising the limits on individual contributions argue that spending money is a freedom of speech issue and therefore the restrictions should be loosened or even eliminated. Opponents of the raise say that by letting individuals spend more money on campaign contributions, politicians votes can essentially be bought and those with more money would have more governmental pull that those with less money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)