What if from this day forward, on the first day of every month, you got around $1,000 deposited into your bank account all because you are a citizen. This income is independent of every other source of income and it is guaranteed to you every month. It is a starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life.

The idea is called universal basic income, or UBI. It’s like social security for all, and it’s starting to get some steam in countries around the world and across the entire political spectrum, for a bunch of reasons. Rising inequality, decades of stagnant wages, the transformation of lifelong careers into sub-hourly tasks, exponentially advancing technology like robots and deep neural networks increasingly capable of replacing potentially half of all human labor. there was actually a presidential candidate who ran on this platform, his name is Andrew Yang and he was definitely a favorite for me. He advocated that every United States citizen above the age of 18 would get 1,000$ a month.

This income would be enough to secure basic needs and it would also be a permanent earnings floor no one could fall beneath, and would replace many of today’s temporary benefits, which are given only in case of emergency, or only to those who successfully pass the applied qualification tests. UBI would be a promise of equal opportunity, not equal outcome, a new starting line set above the poverty line.

It surprised me to learn that a partial UBI has already existed in Alaska since 1982, and that a version of basic income was experimentally tested in the United States in the 1970s. The same is true in Canada, where the town of Dauphin managed to eliminate poverty for five years. Full UBI experiments have been done more recently in places such as Namibia, India and Brazil. Other countries are doing the same: Finland, the Netherlands and Canada are carrying out government-funded experiments to compare against existing programmes. Andrew Yang launched a privately funded experiment in the US.

There are definitely things that still need to be worked out with UBI. I believe this would give a lot of families and people some wiggle room to help them survive. As a college student something like this definitely would’ve helped me this past year. I hope that people keep looking into this so they see how much it helps families.

Sources: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2242937-universal-basic-income-seems-to-improve-employment-and-well-being/

Ever since the last election I haven’t affiliated myself with either party. The slander and bickering was such a turnoff because when I would watch debates half the stuff they would say about the other side wouldn’t be true. It would be classic political slander. Each political party is battling for votes and I can’t respect that because I feel like they’ll say anything that would get me to vote for them.

I’m not alone in my way of thinking 39 percent of voters now identify themselves as independent instead of identifying with one of the two major political parties, according to a 2014 analysis by the Pew Research Center. That’s a pretty big shift from 2004, when the electorate was almost evenly divided into thirds by the three groups.

Most states require voters to affiliate with a party in order to take part in presidential primaries and caucuses. I completely disagree with this because I don’t want to affiliate with either party but if I don’t then I won’t be able to vote in these elections. I just feel like these parties cause way too much tension between the people In this country and I feel like sometimes they lie just so they benefit.

I feel like our generation will spearhead this change because Colorado has more than 1 million officially unaffiliated voters that outnumber Republicans and Democrats in the state. Both parties have about 900,000 registered voters.

Our generation is shunning political parties at an even greater rate than previous generations did, in part due to political dysfunction. We don’t pay them all that money to go to Washington and argue like kids. We elect them so they can make reasonable choices for the citizens of this country.

For far too long we have been our own little political party circle instead of researching things ourselves and forming our own opinions. There are conversations that need to be had and I believe this is one of them. My personal opinion is that the party system won’t have as big of an influence as it does now in the future. So what do you think about the political parties? Do you agree with me or do you disagree?

Sources: https://www.npr.org/2016/02/28/467961962/sick-of-political-parties-unaffiliated-voters-are-changing-politics

In 1905, Albert Einstein determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum was “independent of the motion of all observers”. This was the theory of special relativity. It introduced new ideas for all of physics and changed how we view space and time.

Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-moving observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels. As a result, he found that space and time were one thing not a two separate things; this is what we call space-time. Events that occur at the same time for one observer could occur at different times for another this is gonna be hard to understand so buckle up.

As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that objects with more mass caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine sitting in the center of a trampoline. Your body would press down the trampoline, causing a dimple. A ball rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in just like the gravity of the sun attracts the planets. This makes you think of gravity in a completely different way because gravity isn’t just some strange force that pulls things closer.

This an example of how gravity works and how it distorts space time.

Einstein’s theory of relativity, time dilation describes “a difference of elapsed time between two events, as measured by observers that are either moving relative to each other, or differently, depending on their proximity to a gravitational mass”. It’s basically saying that the closer an object gets to the speed of light the slower time would be relative to that object. 

As you can see you won’t experience a major difference in time or technically “time travel” until about 70% the speed of light once you reach that time for you will go much slower and time for everything not going that speed will remain the same. It’s an amazing thing to think about.

Then lastly there is Gravitational time dilation Which is a form of time dilation, we’ve all experienced this you just don’t know that you have. We are tied to the earth’s gravity and the closer you are to the core of the earth the slower time is for you although the difference is very very small from someone in a plane or y’all building it’s still happening. Black holes make this really interesting because due to gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it. This happens because the gravity is so strong and gravity is able to warp space and time.

Hopefully you enjoyed this topic I know I always enjoy talking about it. It really makes you think about what has yet to be discovered.

More info: https://youtu.be/AInCqm5nCzw

Source: https://www.space.com/amp/42641-einstein-gravitational-time-dilation-galileo-probes.html

      The Cold War was the time period after WWII from 1946 to 1991. It was between The United States, Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union. A great portion of this war happens in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union attempts to set up communist governments throughout Europe and parts of Asia. The United States tries to counter the acts of the Soviet’s by containing the spread of communism by putting a policy called “containment” in place and by this being put in place Europe will eventually become democratic.

In Eastern Europe there were many attempts to spread Communism. The USSR liberated Poland and Czechoslovakia from German occupation. The Soviets also occupied Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary who were all allies of Nazi Germany before occupying eastern Germany. As a result, these areas fell under Soviet influence. In the years immediately following World War II, the USSR established Soviet style Communist governments in these countries. The USSR maintained a strong military presence in these countries throughout the Cold War. The Soviets also developed strong economic relationships with these countries by helping them rebuild after the war.

To counter the spread of Communism the use put a policy in place called containment”. This policy was a response to a series of moves by the Soviet Union to increase communist influence in Europe and Asia. The U.S. used multiple strategies like creating alliances or support to help weak countries to resist Soviet advances. The U.S. felt if more countries started to fall to Communism then other countries would fall almost like a domino effect. The U.S. poured money into the European countries so the majority of people did not turn to communism.

The containment policy was a success even though it failed in places like Vietnam and Cuba but It was successful in Europe and Korea. Considering that Communism didn’t spread any further I would say containment was a success. The containment policy didn’t allow communism to spread to  Eastern Europe and other parts of Asia. The containment policy kept communism where it was and didn’t allow it to advance.

Communism ended in 1991. After a surprising series of events between 1989 and 1991 communism collapsed under its own weight. Communist governments lost power, first in Poland. There were demands for reform spread across East Germany this led to the end of the Berlin wall and the coming together of East and West Germany.

The failure of a communist-led decision against Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union in August 1991 ended the party’s control of the military and government.

https://www.ushistory.org/us/52c.asp

Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by a public official usually to pass or defeat a piece of legislation. Lobbyists are hired by a special interest group to represent their interests to Congress. All kinds of groups hire lobbyists from corporations, private companies,nonprofits and unions to try and persuade people in government to pass legislation that’s favorable to them.

There is nothing wrong with lobbying in its purest form. Lobbying encourages people to play an active role in their government. It’s protected by the First Amendment as a right “to petition the government.”

The problem is when lobbyists use money to buy influence with our politicians. Lobbyists today give millions of dollars to the people in Congress. They’ve become dependent on money from lobbyists to fund their political careers. Congress ends up passing laws to keep the lobbyists and their clients happy, instead of laws that benefit the American people. Those of us who can’t afford to hire a lobbyist or make big campaign contributions are out of luck. 

You can’t just give a congressman or woman $100,000 because that would be considered a bribe. If this was to happen it has the great potential to lead to corruption, so it’s illegal. Instead, companies hire a lobbying firm. The lobbyist can now have a fundraiser and collect $100,000 for the senator’s campaign, then hand deliver a check to him or her without breaking a law.

Now how do we fix a problem like this? To do so, we must make it possible for all Americans to contribute to the candidates of their choice. This will drown out the voices of the few who can spend millions of dollars to influence our politicians. One of my favorites for President this year Andrew Yang had a brilliant idea.

He wanted to provide Americans with vouchers they can donate to political campaigns. Every American would’ve gotten $100 a year to give to candidates in federal, state, or local races. If you didn’t use the money then you would lose it. He calls these Democracy Dollars. The sheer volume of the US population would drown out the influence of big corporations.

Imagine running for office when every American has $100 to give to a single candidate. Just 10,000 supporters could mean $1 million for your campaign. Once elected, you could act primarily in the interest of the people you represent, which is what’s supposed to happen instead of pleasing wealthy donors and corporations. We’d all be better off if politicians only needed to worry about representing the people that elected them.

Big corporations shouldn’t run this country, it belongs to the people. There’s no point in voting if our politicians can be bought. Money can be a dangerous thing if used wrong but it can also be a great thing if used right. I just strongly disagree with this form of lobbying.

I have put a video below that may help you get the concept of lobbyists and what they do a little better.

https://youtu.be/aTbtKRdYbYo

https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-badis-lobbying-good-or-bad/

1. It limits the amount of extreme ideas that enter our government.

When there is a multi-party system in place, then anyone with a view that is extremely conservative or liberal can become a representative in the government. This would include people who may hold racist thoughts, theocratic ideals and old-fashioned ideas on gender roles. The goal of two major parties is to select someone who best represents the platform of the whole party and not someone with radical ideals.

I would argue that there are certainly radical views by people on both sides of the aisle who we elect to represent us. With the two party system they are definitely suppressed a great amount but these people with these ideas still exist. Take a look at our local governments where the people of the state are more reflected by the people they elect.

2. It encourages the government to offer majority representation.

No third party candidate since 1900 has even come close to winning a presidential election in the United States, there are a handful of instances where some people made a strong run. Teddy Roosevelt ran for a second term in office as a third-party candidate and received over 27% of the vote. Ross Perot received over 18% of the vote in 1992. George Wallace won electoral votes in the 1968 election. The reason why it is so difficult for candidates to be successful in a third party is because the two-party system of governing encourages a majority to come together and make a decision. Third party candidates usually don’t have the same backing as the two main parties in the U.S.

This system works to be inclusive by allowing each major party to create a platform which represents the wants and needs of the people and they decide which is best for them. Anyone can join either organization in this system and then fight for the policies they wish to see on the forefront.

3. The two party system is easier for people to understand.

With only two parties that hold opposing views on major issues, falling into one category or the other is pretty easy. And because parties are based on having the same ideas, people find it easier to align with one of them. But what about those who fall smack dead in the middle between these parties what do they do?

When I’m looking for a candidate I look for things like new innovative ideas that I’ve never heard before. Instead of ideas that will make people argue because that does nothing but take our country down I want to find a candidate that will take our country forward.

For a while now America has had a two party system that most Americans align with. This system has its flaws and I think now more than ever we are starting to see those flaws. So today that’s what I’ll talk about and hopefully by the end of this it makes you think about how imperfect our party system is and that there are things we can do to make it better for all Americans.

Because the two-party system puts multiple factions underneath a general umbrella, it creates a circumstance where voters have to “bite their tongue”. They might not like the candidate that represents their party, but that person might be seen as better than the person running on the other side. If you were in a multi-party system, you could vote for the exact person who represents your beliefs and values. With the current system we have in place you might vote for someone based on their stance on 1 or 2 important issues. That means the government may not be an accurate representation of what everyone wants.

In countries where there are multiple parties, the winning candidates have to form a healthy relationship with those they beat to effectively run the country. This does not happen with a two-party system because they spend most of their time undermining the other group, which I’m sure you see plenty of on the news. This would result in unnecessary legislation being passed while the government works with less efficiency, like government shutdowns and Filibustering. 

In the United States, people consider voting for a third-party a waste of vote, so many people tend not to do it even though they feel it’s in their best interests. I believe this is a way of showing that you think differently. We are told to pick a candidate who best represents our ideals and morals but a lot of the time it feels like we are voting for the less of two evils. By weighing out all the advantages and disadvantages of having a two-party political system, you will find out more about what happens during elections.

Just like with every negative there is a positive so there are positives to having a two party system. I’ll talk about those in my next blog. I just think it’s important to know that nothing is perfect and everything has its flaws.

The United States is divided more than it’s been since the civil rights movement and I think a big part of that is the two parties that most people identify with in this country the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These party’s have ran this country almost since its creation and now more than ever are starting to see the negative benefits with having two major parties controlling the narrative. Our country is being divided by the republicans and democrats.

Since the 2016 election our country has been dividing more and more by the day every time you look at CNN or Fox News they’re taking shots at each other or the other sides party. The constant argument of which party is right and wrong has to end if we want our country to move forward. It would be wrong to say that the 2016 election was the sole cause of this division the binary system that runs this country have divided the country into 2 teams that would love to see the other fail. When in reality we should all be on the same team and we should want the best for everyone that is in this country no matter what you disagree on.

John Adams warned, “a Division of the Republick into two great Parties … is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil”). John Adams one of the founding fathers knew the damage that a binary system could cause like divisive partisanship. Since 1980 there have been 10 government shutdowns and all because the people in Washington can’t put their differences aside. They are supposed to be able to put their differences aside and do what’s best for the people each time the government is shutdown people that work for the government can’t work and provide for their families, while the people who cause the shut down will be just fine. They always say that it’s for the good of the American people but if that was the case the shutdown would never happen.

“Extend the sphere,” James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 when he says this he is saying extend the sphere of influence that there shouldn’t be one giant group that controls the country but it also mean they’re should be two or three. Everyone doesn’t agree on the same things and that’s ok but what people with different political ideologies deserve to be heard but the truth is they won’t with the current political parties running the show. Fox owns multiple Television stations and production studios Same with Warner media. They have the ability to push their narrative on anyone who is willing to watch and listen.

I’m not saying anyone is wrong because they follow one of these parties I’m saying you are doing yourself a disservice if you don’t look into issues and think for yourself. whether you think so or not these two parties benefit from you believing every word they say and they will continue to shape the narrative and push an agenda until we as Americans start thinking for ourselves and start holding our politicians to a higher standard. It doesn’t matter the party or ideals you align with the we all live in the same country so we have to find a way to get along and listen to each other.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysi s/section-ii-

James Madison and John Jay wrote a total of 85 essays called the Federalist Papers which covered fundamental principles like the division of government powers, legislative checks and balances, and establishment of an independent judiciary. The writings were so influential that each state eventually ratified the Constitution. Most of the same ideals set forth in the Federalist Papers are still in force in the U.S. today.

One of the ways they are still used is  when interpreting the Constitution, federal judges frequently use The Federalist Papers as a way of better understanding the intentions of the framers and ratifiers. These papers are literally a way for us to understand what was going on in the heads of the people who helped create this country. By the year 2000, The Federalist papers had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions. This really helps you understand how important these papers were to the creation and interpretation of our constitution.

A lot of people don’t understand that there was a lot of arguing over what should be in the constitution and what shouldn’t at first there were a couple ratifiers that did even want a bill of rights. Imagine our constitution without the bill of rights. Some people don’t believe they should play a big role in today’s government like former Chief justice John Marshall he during McCulloch v. Maryland he stated “the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge their correctness must be retained.” But does he have a point? Just because they framed the constitution does this mean that everything they said was right? We all interpret the constitution in different ways.

The second amendment is a great example; it says“ a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Some people may say it doesn’t say every citizen it says “a well regulated militia” others may say that it says the “ right of the people” it’s things like this that we as Americans have to figure out what to do and what’s best for our country. Were they wrong for putting this or were they right? We’ll never know we just have to decide what’s best for our country after all it isn’t their country anymore it’s ours.

Faction is inevitable; it has been around since the beginning of mankind. People will never think the same no matter what so people tend to find people that are like minded because it makes us feel safe and sheltered but that’s not good at all because the moment we meet someone who thinks differently than we sometimes act of character. James Madison talked about faction in Federalists No.10 and that’s what I wanna talk about.

As defined by Madison, a faction was a number of citizens, whether a majority or minority, who were united and activated “by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Since this is a political blog let’s talk about both the “factions” that run our country today the democrats and republicans. It doesn’t matter which side you identify with but I’m sure we can all agree that it somewhat feels like a faction. He talks about two ways of removing the causes of factions, or political parties. The first was to “destroy the liberty 

 essential to their existence This remedy would be worse than the disease”. This is basically saying that you would have to abolish freedom completely and that would be worse than faction. The second was to “give everyone the same opinions, passions, and interests”. This is impossible to do. He says that one of the biggest causes for faction is the “unequal distribution or property” so basically the rich and the poor. The rich have always controlled everything throughout time and the poor have been expected to fall in line. No matter how hard we try, it is impossible to remove faction.

So you may ask yourself if it’s impossible to remove faction , what should we do? Madison talks about ways to control faction and the best ways to deal with it. He says faction can best be controlled in a large society under a representative form of government just like what we have today. 

So our government is perfect for controlling faction but why does it feel like we are worse than ever right now? My opinion is that we don’t want to listen to each other and nobody on either side is willing to give anything up I understand faction is inevitable but that doesn’t mean we can’t get along and do what’s best for The United States we are all united by the same passions and impulses and that’s exactly what a faction is so if we are gonna have our factions let’s make sure we put the most important one first.

Sources: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-ii-advantages-of-union-federalist-no-10-james-madison