American Government - Laufenberg — Slate (skeleton-v3 PHP 8 prototype)

Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy (1993 - 2011)

Posted by Thomas Nicolella in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 10:18 pm

DADT Policy Prezi Presentation, By: Thomas Nicolella

Reflection:

I chose the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to talk about because it is a policy that has had such a large impact on a large group of America's population. Ever since 1993 there has been outrage about the DADT policy and although it was made out of good intention by President Bill Clinton, it ultimately held back homosexual and bisexual military service members. I thought that a Prezi would be the best way to present this data without being boring because a Prezi presentation is thrilling to look at just because of how smooth it operates. This way of presenting made it easy for me to tell a story of the policy as it unfolded and eventually got repealed earlier this year.
Some of the biggest challenges for me were included with the research process. At first, I couldn't actually figure out how the policy was started, as there were many attempts at starting a policy like this one that would take away the total ban of homosexual service members. If I was able to do the project differently, I would make the presentation into more of a story as opposed to a linear procession through the major events in the policy's timeline. After researching thoroughly, I found out that all of the attempts at this policy before Bill Clinton's intrusion into the topic were shot down fairly quickly. Congress even wanted to shoot down Clinton's policy when he proposed DADT. He eventually got his was and ratified the policy with a great amount of opposition from many in congress. The project basically went along as planned. I knew there was going to be a lot of information, unlike many other bills that were chosen because the DADT policy was closely monitored throughout it's life and has recently made a big splash in the media because of its repeal.

Bibliography:

Belkin, Aaron. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?." Parameters: US Army War College 33.2 (2003): 108. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010

Fuller, Andrea. "Colleges Await End of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. (Cover story)." Chronicle of Higher Education 56.25 (2010): A1-A21. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 30
Mar. 2010

Grice, Michael D. "Leading Through Change." Marine Corps Gazette 94, no. 1 (January 2010): 43-45. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed March 30, 2010).

Kilgannon, Corey. "At West Point, Hidden Gay Cadets" Early Bird, August 25, 2010.

McMichael, William H., et al. "How troops really feel about gays serving openly." Army Times 70.31 (2010): 10-14. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

McMichael, William H. "Mullen: Dropping 'don't ask' is 'the right thing to do.'." Army Times 70.31 (2010): 11-14. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

McMichael, William H., et al. "Service chiefs: Don't repeal gay ban during war.." Army Times 70.34 (2010): 21. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

Moradi, Bonnie, and Laura Miller. "Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members." Armed Forces & Society (0095327X) 36.3 (2010): 397-419. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

Prakash, Om. "The Efficacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 2009 4th Quarter, Issue 55, p88-94. Military & Government Collection. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

"The Palm Center; Summit Announced on Gay Service In Foreign Militaries. " Defense & Aerospace Business 24 Feb. 2010: 38 ProQuest Military Collection, ProQuest. Web. 30 Mar. 2010.

No Child Left Behind

Posted by Trevor Hinton in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 9:26 pm

This is my History Benchmark that I did about the bill "No Child Left Behind"

Click image to begin PDF styled keynote presentation

Reflection:

Explain your decision making for choosing the bill:
I decided to do this bill because I knew of the initial reasons as to why it passed through congress and why it became a bill however I never really understood the background information of it all and who was exactly involved in the overall steps and process of making it a bill.

Why did you choose the particular presentation format?
I chose to do this format because it made since when looking at ways to present it but it also made sense when trying to convey a small story to present. I decided to go keynote because I knew I could get the most out of presenting and making my points known

What challenges did you overcome in completing the project?
Some challenges that I had to overcome when completing this was finding ways to actually incorporate all the information that I had actually gathered as well as piecing everything together in something that wouldn't bore people or lose their interest in the project.

How would you do the project differently if you had to do it over again?
If I were to do this project over again I would probably create either a imovie or prezi although I'm not really familiar with how to make a prezi but I feel as though with using those I'd be able to create something in which people could become more engaged with and actually receive a clearer message overall.

What did the research and investigation tell you about the creation process... from idea to bill to law?
What the research actually told me was that it was actually a clear cut idea to begin with however when it came to actually figuring out how to make this work together and make everything flow so that in the longrun it wouldn't confuse not only teachers but school officials wouldn't be confused it showed that this idea that was going to become a bill was a little harder than first thought of. I found it interesting that I didn't read of things being taken back or parts of this idea in it's early stages being rescinded.

Was the process easier or harder than you imagined based on your particular bill/law research?
The process was actually harder than first imagined because it took time for me to actually decide on which bill I wanted to do and then from there the steps to find credible information and what made sense to portray the information.

A Fracked Up System (Energy Act Policy 2005)

Posted by Rashaun Williams in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Energy Policy Act 2005 (Video)

Reps the Rep Me:
John Myers, District 201, PA House (D)
Shirley M. Kitchen, District 3, PA Senate (D)
Chaka Fattah, US House (D)

Act History
Introduced by Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican conservative Texasman, on April 18, 2005, the Chairman of the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The role of the Committee is to basically oversee the following.

Telecommunications
Consumer protection
Food and drug safety
Public health
Air quality and environmental health
Supply and delivery of energy
Interstate and foreign commerce in general

Interesting facts about Joe Barton is that he opposed the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and is a Tea Party supporter.

Passed by House on April 21, 2005 (249 - 183)
Passed by Senate on June 28, 2005 (85 - 12)
Signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005
Supported by President Obama in 2008

Created to solve many of America’s energy problems.
Made many changes to the Energy Policy of the United States
Is a great idea and way to make energy costs cheaper and makes the country more independent.

Dangerous for many individuals directly effected by the collection of energy efficient resources physically and mentally.
Changed the Daylight Savings time one hour ahead on March 11, 2007 instead of April 1, and set back November 4 of 2007 instead of Sunday October 28.

Links
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/2011/10/republicans-divided-on-fracking-impact-fee/

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html

https://docs.google.com/a/scienceleadership.org/viewer?url=http://www.doi.gov/pam/EnergyPolicyAct2005.pdf

http://joebarton.house.gov/Default.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FeLvmZU348

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcBUkSuaVbk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5eBfZhE4M

I chose the Energy Act Policy because it's getting a lot of press and attention from people concerned about their health and water, and even oil and gas companies. Personally, I feel directly effected by it, as all things in government directly effect me. This one I felt could effect me in a different manner, which would be my health. If the information about Fracking is true that was sen on Gasland and many more things, then the Energy Policy Act is something that needs serious attention and revitalization. along the way.

I wanted to be entertaining with the presentation, not losing people's attention as it went along, so I decided that I'd do a video and place an song behind the video. I chopped the video into frames to match the song swell because I wanted to draw the viewer in a little more from all the information they had just taken in minutes ago.

In order to really understand the Act, I had to do a lot of reading and research. At first, I thought it was directly related to water and hydrofracturing, but soon I found that it was connected to energy in just about every form. There was also information that wasn't even included in the project that I chose to understand a little more too.

If I had the opportunity to, I would most likely focus on the act in its entry and not just on water and air. I think that these are generally the most important factors of the bill because they relate to the health of the people, but there's a lot of information that isn't talked about in the benchmark presentation that isn't given in terms of money, actual companies, changes that we're made to the country and more.

This bill became a law rather quickly, and I was surprised at just how fast it was passed. Thinking about it again, I wasn't too surprised because I understand that government will work quickly when money is involved. I did more research for the person who introduced the bill and all the things surrounding it, and I found that it's goals are actually great, but it's results are selfish and causing some major controversy in the United States.

This process wasn't really that hard, it was just a lot of reading. No one seemed to really explain how the entire act worked in simple terms, nor did anyone seem to write about the act to explain it either, so that was a process for me, but a rather simple one.

This issue is getting a ton of media attention, some of it smack in the face, some of it subliminal. There are commercials and advertisements for franking as their have been people in the street and posters that are against it.

The major supporters of hydrofracturing are oil and gas companies because this is a source or revenue for them. When you investigate the actual bill in depth, you see that many energy companies and people who work with energy are supporters of the bill as well, due to the benefits that come their way.

There's no current policy written for this topic other then the actual Energy Act Policy itself. Oil companies have specific regulations they must follow and what people don't know is that when oil companies fail to meet these requirements, they get a lot of heat from the government and the oil company managers get a lot of heat from their superiors, like most businesses. Whether we see it or not, it is happening.

I know of this organization personally called Protecting Our Waters, which is a non profit organization with representation all over the tristate and East coast. Through the efforts of petitioners, and collective organizations, they said "Governor Markell of Delaware publicly announced he would vote against the proposed regulations, in the interest of science, public health and the environment." Through connecting with organizations like this, those against fracking can make sure their voices are not only heard but felt. Hopefully Pennsylvania has the same amount of support and people behind the no fracking initiative to keep our waters clean. The way we influence people is through keeping them informed with the process and find ways for them to easily get involved.

The American Jobs Act

Posted by Rafiq Robinson in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 7:16 pm

http://prezi.com/gzojfqkiwvbx

Reflection

I chose this bill because it seems interesting enough and like something that can easily be misrepresented as something complete where it just not. What I mean by the latter half of the last sentence is that I have a habit of forming a "strong" opinion on things that I do not know enough about and it is really not a good thing at all, to me it breeds ignorance and I do not want to be misinformed about things. So with that said it made me want to investigate more on this because the way that President Obama was screaming "Pass this bill now!" you would think it is a solution to all of Americas' economic woes, but it is a few reasons why republicans would not pass this bill.

I honestly chose this presentation format because my storybook idea didn't work out that well. It is this program that does adult storybook format settings but it cost money and I gave myself until a certain day before I would just use prezi and I am a procrastinator so it ended up being my absolute only choice to use. All and all I should viewed my resources to see if there was a better way to present but it was just wishful thinking that I would be able to get the program and also prezi can be used a pretty good resource for story telling if you use it right.

The challenges I had were making it creative prezi is good in itself but zooming and spinning gets old after time so finding new ways to do things is very challenging but I tried to balance it. I would've probably spent more time actually designing the project instead of deluding myself into thinking that I could get this program in time.

The creation process as a whole tells me that it didn't take much time to get the idea, it probably took a lot of time to write up due to the fact that it is 2000 pages long if I remember correctly and it

The process ended up being harder than I imagined. Since my objective was to tell a story it kinda got lost so trying to stick to that was hard. I don't even think I entirely succeeded in telling a story but I think it came out okay.

Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act: Kevin's Law

Posted by Briana Stroman in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 5:22 pm

My Prezi

My original format was a book. I had downloaded the app "Blurbs". It seemed well until I realized I couldn't move things around, and I couldn't deal with it really. So I had a last minute change in format, which I chose to use Prezi, which was quick for me to use. I guess that's what I aimed for. I had two main challenges during this project, which was the format and my information. See, I honestly don't think I presented this as a story, when I look at it now. It seemed as thought I wanted to get it done. And also, I don't think I grabbed enough information. Most of the facts I used, I already knew. So I didn't learn more facts, even with the resources I used. My project would be different if my process was better. Half of the time I was trying to figure out what bill/law I wanted to do. I was trying to find a bill/law I wouldn't be bored with, one that I could actually enjoy to work on and learn more about. But since I was wasting time looking for bills/laws, I just chose to do one I was previously going over in another class. I would've figured I would learn more about it, which I didn't really. This whole thing seemed difficult but easy at the same time. It was difficult to find a law I would stick to, but easy for me to jot down facts of a bill/law that I knew about. I thought I was proud of it, but now it seems okay. I could have done better, or found another book app. But it honestly was too late. So I chose to do something quick, but I felt that I forgot the mission to making it a story. The only thing I got out of the project was the process of the bill. I think I explained that well in this project..

Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956

Posted by Brooke Thompson in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Explain your decision making for choosing the bill.

When I choose to do my benchmark based around this bill it wasn't my first choice. I wanted to do the something based on the drinking age act. But I learned that they came from the federal high way act so then I decide to do the federal high way act of 1956.

Why did you choose the particular presentation format?

I choose to do a comic book/ story bored because I feel as though everything looks better with pictures added to it. And people can normally learn better with pictures.

What challenges did you overcome in completing the project?

Understanding certain terms and vocabulary when doing researching my project was a challenge. As well as trying to compress the story of the bill.

How would you do the project differently if you had to do it over again

If I were to do it over again I would choose a different bill and do more in depth research so that i would understand it more.

What did the research and investigation tell you about the creation process... from idea to bill to law?

My research and investigation told me that bills take forever to become laws. And that congress cant really agree on anything.

Was the process easier or harder than you imagined based on your particular bill/law research?

It was harder because I was expecting the research part of the project to be easy.

No Child Left Behind Act

Posted by Chelsea Starks in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 10:15 am

This is the No Child Left behind Act

Reflection:
I chose this bill because I felt like it was really relevant to our every day life and has been for a while. I know that because of this bill our school exists to prove it wrong. To prove that we don't need these test to improve academic achievement among students. I chose this particular presentation format because I wanted to do something engaging, thought provoking, as well as intriguing visually. The challenges I overcame in this project was figuring out how exactly I could get my point across about the bill without seeming boring or over the top. Another challenge I had was getting the footage that I needed and getting the timing for each clip. If I had to do this project all over again I'd very well try to add more to it but I would have also made two or three videos showing information on the bill, how one side feels about it, and how the opposing side feels about the bill instead of kind of lumping everything together. It was a very quick video that was straight and to the point but I think it could have been better.The research and investigation told me that if you an idea and you feel strongly about it, especially something that can impact people's every day life, all it needs is support and possibly money as well so that it can move forward. Teachers don't agree with standardized testing and though to their protests and because of bureaucrats with money and politicians taking bribes, the Senate voted to pass this bill anyway. My process was pretty easy because you could find information almost anywhere on it. I could find both perspectives from their standpoints and I could easily understand it. Overall this bill was really cool to learn about and I had fun making this media and I hope to continue making projects like these.

The No Child Left Behind Act - Chelsea Starks

Hydro Fracking in Philadelphia (#2)

Posted by Thomas Nicolella in American Government - Laufenberg on Friday, November 4, 2011 at 9:17 am

In the past five years, Philadelphia’s drinking water has gone from the top five cleanest bodies of drinking water to dead last. Many officials this is due to hydraulic fracturing since fracking has recently started in Philadelphia in the past couple of years. Many feel that the chemicals used to break through bedrock and go through a pipe that is plunged through are drinking water are leaking into the bodies of water, infecting what we drink on a daily basis. However, this cannot be found out entirely because companies that practice hydraulic fracturing will not release a full list of chemicals that are used in the process. However, many of the chemicals that they have told the public about are cancerous substances.

Officials from the Philadelphia Water Department are some of the most avid fighters against fracking. They have realized that hydraulic fracturing in the Delaware River is a major factor in the quality of drinking water in Philly, as about 60 percent of the city’s residents get their drinking water from the river. The water department also realizes that drilling is only one of the problems that plagues our city’s drinking water and Christopher S. Crockett, director of planning and research at the water department of Philadelphia says that the company is going to take a scientific approach to the situation as apposed to jumping out of their seat and being sloppy about it.

Other officials against fracking are taking a quicker approach to shutting down hydraulic fracturing in Philadelphia. The executive director of PennEnvironment, David Masur has frowned upon the Water Department because of their lack of urgency when it comes to stopping hydraulic fracking in the Delaware River.

For more info on PennEnvironment’s approach on the halt of fracking (http://www.pennenvironment.org/drilling/water)

Detailed Fracking Information

Lafler v. Cooper

Posted by Tyler Hankinson in American Government - Laufenberg on Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 9:02 am

Issue:Whether a defendant seeking habeas is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel’s deficient advice caused the defendant to reject a plea bargain in which the defendant had no vested right, and where the rejection did not deny the defendant a fair trial. (2) What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.

What happened ?

Anthony Cooper was convicted of shooting a woman in the thigh and butt after missing a shot to her head. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit overturned the conviction after Cooper claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. His lawyer told him not to take a plea offer, thinking that there could not be a finding that Cooper intended to murder his victim. But Cooper was convicted of assault with intent to murder and other charges. The appeals court said the incorrect advice equals unconstitutional ineffective assistance and ordered Cooper released. But Michigan officials argue that Cooper got a fair trial and that the verdict should not be thrown out because of his lawyer's mistake.

Relation to other cases:

Lafler v. Cooper’s case is related to the missouri v. Frye case the difference between the two cases is that the missouri v. frye case criminal defendant was not notified of the deal the prosecutors offered, received a harsher sentence and now wants an opportunity to gain the right his lawyer failed to notify him of.

What I think- I think that coopers case should be thrown out the window because he was not taught the lay of the courts but the lawyer new so therefore the blame should be on the lawyer.

Missouri v. Frye

Posted by Lamaya Mapp in American Government - Laufenberg on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 10:46 pm

Missouri v. Frye
Case Issue: Can a criminal defendant who was convicted after a jury trial later argue that his lawyer was inadequate because he failed to tell him that prosecutors had offered a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence? And, if so, what should courts do to correct the lawyer's error?

What happened exactly?
A defense attorney failed to inform his client, Galin Edward Frye, who had been charged with repeatedly driving while his license was revoked, of a plea offer by the prosecution. After the offer by the prosecutors expired, Frye was arrested for the fifth time then later entered a guilty plea without having the option of the plea offer and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Problems:
The lawyer didn’t present the offer to the criminal defendant (Frye) therefore has violated the criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. The sixth amendment gives the criminal defendant the right to plead guilty if you choose too. In other words, you have a right to a fair trial. The amendment relates to the case because the counsel’s failure to communicate the plea offer prior to its expiration resulted in Frye not being able to plead guilty. During this seating, Attorney General Koster will advocate the law-enforcement position that Mr. Frye’s conviction should stand, and he should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

Missouri argues that Frye’s request gives attorneys the opportunity to strategically use plea offers as insurance policies against trial results that aren’t unpredictable. Missouri assures that, an attorney can allow a plea offer to expire without communicating it to the defendant, which means the lawyer wants the defendant has to stand trial hoping for a lighter sentence.

Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court has to decided whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair trail and having effective assistance of counsel protects the criminal defendant whose attorney has not communicated the available plea bargain options,

Respondent Frye argues that his counsel’s failure to inform him of his plea offer was unreasonable and it prejudiced him. However, the State of Missouri maintains that Frye fails the prejudice requirements because prejudice requires a showing that, in the absence of attorney error, Frye would have pled not guilty and gone to trial.

Connection/Relation to other cases:
Missouri v. Frye case is connected to Lafler v. Cooper’s case, the only difference between the two cases is that the Lafler v. Cooper’s case criminal defendant decided to ignore the lawyer’s offer by pleading guilty, got a harsher sentence, and now wants to have privilege of that offer, which was admitting to the crime for a lighter sentence. Missouri v. Frye case criminal defendant was not notified of the deal the prosecutors offered, received a harsher sentence and now wants an opportunity to gain the right his lawyer failed to notify him of.

HILL v. LOCKHART

William Lloyd Hill pleaded guilty in the Arkansas trial court to charges of first-degree murder and theft of property. More than two years later he found out that his court-appointed attorney had failed to advise him that, as a second offender, he was required to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

My Opinion

It’s hard to say what exactly side I am on. I believe it was unfair and unjust to Frye because this situation validated his constitutional rights. He had a right to a fair trial, therefore I believe something should be done in his favor. I’m confused by Missouri’s side of defense because they are saying there needs to be proof that Frye would have pled not guilty if his lawyer had not made an error, which is assuming. I don’t believe you can base anything of a assumption, but most likely it isn’t an assumption minding that Frye has been arresting for this crime numerous of times. Also, the government is not responsible for any errors that were made by an lawyer.

No decision was made as of November 2, 2011. Many of the arguments are resorting back to the Hill v. Lockhart case.

American Government - Laufenberg Public Feed