Part 1- students will find a current event related to topics in Texas government: state and local politics. Whats a summary analysis, you say? The grandaddy of all political science, Harold Lasswell,

Part 1- students will find a current event related to topics in Texas government: state and local politics. Whats a summary analysis, you say? The grandaddy of all political science, Harold Lasswell, is known for defining Politics. , Ideological values, beliefs, and opinions, aside, when it comes to government and politics, his definition of the word (ironically) is probably the only thing that all mankind can agree on. Lasswell, defines politics, as "who, gets what, where, when, and how". Apply that definition to the article's information, or the article's information to that definition, and write a 10 sentence summary that focuses on critically evaluating what is going on, from your personal perspective. Interject your opinion. You should be making a statement, argument, and your opinion about the subject matter, should be known. However, this needs to be done in a scholarly and academic manner. Focus on explanation, reason and rationalization, to provide a clear opinion statement and discussion of their personal perspective and political position towards the event or issue in their article. In addition, to receive full credit, students MUST include a direct link to the original article’s text that they are using to complete this assignment.

Part 2- students will review summary analyses submissions, made in part 1, and offer a rebuttal to a classmate's current event analysis, which opposes their own.  MOST IMPORTANTLY,  BE CONSTRUCTIVE in your critiques; and RATIONAL in your explanation of your perspective.  Rebuttals must be 5-10 sentences in length. 

Both parts are to be submitted to this discussion bored. Reply directly to the original post of your peer, when completing part 2. .

You must complete part 1, and post your article with the summary analysis, before you will be able to review and respond to the post's of your peers.

Search entries or author Filter replies by unreadUnread   Collapse replies Expand replies Subscribe ReplyReply to Current Event Article Discussions 2

• Collapse SubdiscussionHong an TranHong an TranSep 28, 2019Sep 28 at 4:09pmManage Discussion EntryHere's what Texans in Congress are saying about impeaching President Donald TrumpLink (Links to an external site.)This article mainly talks about the upcoming impeachment of President Donald Trump after exposing his secret exchange with Ukraine. This argument is where two political parties confront each other about this issue. Democrats call for impeachment while Republicans do not approve of it. Only U.S. House members vote for or against impeachment. Then, U.S. senators to vote to decide the fate of that public official in a trial. 23 of Texas' Republicans do not express any supports toward the idea of impeachment. Moreover, two of the Republican Senators are also opposed. There are a total of 13 Democrats,  eight of them are ready for impeachment while five of them are still under consideration. One of the reasons that all the Republicans denies is they want to protect their party since Donald Trump is a Republican. The issue arises during the upcoming reelection 2020.  The president asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate the family of Vice President Joe Biden, a potential political rival in the 2020 presidential election. This information was exposed by an intelligent whistleblower leading the more intense debate for the Democrats. Ukraine was "ready to continue to cooperate" to buy more weapons from the U.S., that prompted Trump to ask him for a "favor" that he hoped might lead to information about the Biden family. However, "No push, no pressure, no nothing — it's all a hoax, folks. It's all a big hoax," Trump said. He says that he is transparent despite the whistleblower's complaint. In my opinion, the government should consider investigating this problem since it is one of the significant issues which will decide the future of this country. Furthermore, the president supposes to enhance his country and provide a better place for citizens but not by destroying it or using any devious tactics to keep his presidency. Just like Rep. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher said: "The House of Representatives should act swiftly to investigate and should be prepared to use the remedy exclusively in its power: impeachment.” By consuming some time to investigate this issue, it will protect the benefits of citizens and this country. ReplyReply to Comment
  • Collapse SubdiscussionLan VuongLan VuongOct 3, 2019Oct 3 at 12:09amManage Discussion EntryHi Hong An Tran, your article about impeaching President Donald Trump is really popular right now in newspaper because I already read a lot about that. In my opinion, I think President Donald Trump wants to investigate about Joe Biden is not good for his seat in the United States, but he may need these information from Ukraine's President to help the state. About politics, we may not know a lot of information, but President Donald Trump may think differently. He may think these information about Joe Biden will help him to keep his seat and also support this state. In addition, I agree with you about Republicans want to protect President Trump because he is Republican. However, Democrats is not only a different side from Trump but also put him down. Democrats always want to let Donald trump down, so they want impeach President Donald trump. Therefore, I think this problem is not from President Donald trump, it also starts from Democrats which always want to impeach him. ReplyReply to Comment
• Collapse SubdiscussionFleur PeekFleur PeekSep 28, 2019Sep 28 at 10:32pmManage Discussion Entryhttps://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/governor-abbott-expedited-executions-mass-shooters/ (Links to an external site.)The Governor Wants “Expedited Executions” For Mass Shooters. But Who Would That Deter?Governor Gregg Abbott wants to expedite the execution of mass murderers in the state of Texas. This topic is highly controversial since Texas is one of thirty states that actually performs the death penalty and it is still a highly debated and deliberated topic around the world. “Four of the ten deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history have occurred (in Texas)” and of all of them only one of the mass shooters, the El Paso shooter, survived and was captured alive by law enforcement. The problem with expediting the executions of mass shooters is that many of them kill themselves on purpose before being captured or hope to die if captured, for example the El Paso shooter “The worst part of being captured would be having to live with the knowledge that his actions meant that his family hated him. Instead, he hoped to die as quickly as possible.” The shooter himself wanted to die from his actions just not by his own hand. I believe that expediting his execution would be foolish as it would be the state of Texas subduing to the will of the killer as he would rather be dead than suffer knowing that everyone hates him. I personally believe that sympathizing with a mass murderer is not fair to the families of those affected as he ended their lives without their consent yet the state of Texas wants to end his life with his happily given consent. The Death penalty is a highly controversial subject within the State of Texas alone and the governor himself has not given a reason as to why he wants to expedite executions. It is unfair of the governor to play into the ploy of the perpetrator without giving the constituants a fair reason but instead he is swaying the minds of those who are unaware of the wants of shooter. Without effective laws of gun control the state is left with nothing to show that they are taking shootings seriously other than expediting executions “our leaders are a “NO” on the most obvious—and popular, even in Texas —solution of passing laws that make it harder for people who might carry out a mass shooting to get their hands on guns.” ReplyReply to Comment
  • Collapse SubdiscussionKaren FerrufinoKaren FerrufinoOct 4, 2019Oct 4 at 10:18amManage Discussion EntryHi Fleur,The topic of mass shootings is very controversial in our country but you make a very good point. Capturing  these mass shooters and putting on the table the death penalty is not the way to go. The death penalty does not give the victims any justice nor any console for the victim's family. This is just a way for the shooter to get the easy way out and not suffer any concequences. This is hy majority of the time the police can not caputere them before they already have killed themselves. Expediting executions just make the death penalty worse, the right legal reprecussion is life in prison for cases like these. ReplyReply to Comment
  • Collapse SubdiscussionHong an TranHong an TranOct 5, 2019Oct 5 at 12:37pmManage Discussion EntryHi Fleur, I believe that executing quickly the mass shooters is not a solution to this problem. It is controversial when it is coming to the idea of citizens holding guns in their hands. It is indeed a right listed in the constitution that people have the privileges to carry a gun so that they can protect themselves from harm. However, when it comes to ethic and morals, people have come to take advantage of weapons in a harmful manner. After achieving this benefit, people have a selfish idea that blinds their judgment and results in a repercussion. Or the mass shooters have their own reason to go on genocide, maybe because of their disorders or perhaps because of their unrighteous treatment from their parents. Immediate execution is not a choice; not only does it not justify for the perpetrators but also aggravate the feelings and the emotions of other mass shooters and keep them going on shooting. Edited by Hong an Tran on Oct 5 at 12:38pm ReplyReply to Comment
• Collapse SubdiscussionLan VuongLan VuongOct 1, 2019Oct 1 at 2:07pmManage Discussion EntryDemocratic and Republican congressional campaign leaders spar over 2020, impeachment     This article is the conversation between National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Tom Emmer and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Cheri Buston on Saturday September 28, 2019. In this panel, they talked about the future of United States House, socialist Democrat, and chances of Republicans in 2020. First of all, they started by an argument about impeachment and complaint because of President Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian President in July. Next, Tom Emmer attacked Buston and her party by the content in the attempt which is called “undo” in 2016. After that, Buston immediately showed the transcript of the phone conversation of President Trump and the Ukrainian President. Also, she read aloud the transcript that Donald Trump wanted the Ukrainian President to investigate Joe Biden who is Trump’s rival. In addition, Buston was confident that her party will win in 2020. However, Emmer contradict her by disagreement about health care, climate change, and impeachment of Democrats’ view, and it will also a backfire of Democrats in 2020. Finally, they talked about the different meaning of “Texodus” which is the phrase to describe the number of Texas Republican retirement. Conversely, Buston said “Texodus” showed the fear of Republicans who held onto their seats in 2018. In my opinion, I agree with the idea of an audience member in the end of this conversation, and he said “Rather than trying to work across the aisle, they are just focused on stealing seats from the other party.”Reference: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/09/28/texas-congressional-seats/ (Links to an external site.)  ReplyReply to Comment
• Collapse SubdiscussionKaren FerrufinoKaren FerrufinoOct 4, 2019Oct 4 at 9:59amManage Discussion Entry"A Mexican citizen had court papers allowing him to be in the U.S. But a Border Patrol agent detained him anyway."https://www.texastribune.org/2019/10/04/texas-immigrant-detained-border-patrol-adminstrative-closure/ (Links to an external site.)The article explains the event where a Mexican Citizen was wrongfully detained at checkpoint. Luis Orozco was making his way back to El Paso when he goes throguht border patrol checkpoint and gets detained. Luis did not have a green card or work permit, but he did have administrative closure papers that allowed him to enter legally in the U.S.. The administrative closure is signed by a judge that an immigrant's case is indefinitely on hold because it was a low priority case. When Luis presented his papers , the border patrol agents mocked him and overturned the judge's rule on the papers telling luis, "Your a Mexican, you don't belong here." The border patrol does not have any authority to overturn a case nor have any say in doing so. In this case, I believe that when the judge makes this kind of rulings they shold be more exact and official that they can legally re-enter the United States and no border patrol agent can overrule this. In addtion the judges, could reopen the cases and countinue with the legal process.  Another way, these kind of issues should be fixed is by appointing mature and respectful agents at the border. Agents like the ones in this case, prove that they are not mature enough to handle encounters with incoming immigrants legal or not. The agents should be held accountable for the way they disrespected the rule of law and managed the situation.  ReplyReply to Comment
  • Collapse SubdiscussionTyriana TerrellTyriana TerrellOct 23, 2019Oct 23 at 2:39pmManage Discussion EntryI agree with you, it's issues like these when law officials should reestablish the regulations on what is and isn't legal for "enforcers of the law". It seems that law-enforcers are steadily getting away with this type of behavior. ReplyReply to Comment
• Collapse SubdiscussionTyriana TerrellTyriana TerrellOct 23, 2019Oct 23 at 2:35pmManage Discussion EntryMore Violence to Answer For, Residents SayFor Part One of Texas Current Events, I spoke on the illegal and immoral shooting death of Fort Worth's Atatiana Jefferson by law enforcement. After further researching this topic it turns out that this is not the only time blacks have been mistreated by the police.  According to the New York Times, it turns out that before there was Atatiana Jefferson there was Jackie Craig, a black woman who called the cops on her white neighbor for putting his hands on her son, but it was Jackie who ended up being pinned to the ground. There was Craigory Adams, also black, who was "accidentally" shot in the arm by a cop. These are only a couple of the names that have been brought up again after the death of Atatiana Jefferson. This leaves me thinking that these law enforcing officers undoubtedly need re-training, and more strict regulations on when it's okay to fire, not just when they perceive a person as a threat, because that leaves a large amount of room for error. As well as when its violently interact with any persons of color. ReplyReply to Comment
  • Collapse SubdiscussionMonica NwokeMonica NwokeMondayOct 28 at 4:59pmManage Discussion EntryHey Tyriana, nice topic you chose for your writing! I personally feel as though this issue lies deeper than police needing "re-training". Don't get me wrong, the police officers involved in these situations could definitely benefit from a training session to jog up their memory on what's right and wrong. But these situations are all deeply rooted in racism and hatred of black people. There have been countless situations in which a police officer is attacked by a non person of color and no kind of enforcement was done (handcuffs being placed on, taser being used etc.) But if we were do to a 180 and have a person of color as the aggressor, the outcome may be deadly. I think what needs to be done is a psychological test of some sort once the aspiring officer has completed police academy to truly test the morals of that individual and where there head is at mentally.  ReplyReply to Comment
• Collapse SubdiscussionMonica NwokeMonica NwokeMondayOct 28 at 4:34pmManage Discussion EntryPresident Impeachment UpdateThe mission to get President Trump out of office has been the topic of discussion for the past two weeks. But it seems as though house impeachment investigators have experienced an obstacle that some say may test the limits of Democrats. According to author Nicholas Fandos (2019) this roadblock "It marks a shift for Democrats, who have resisted for weeks the idea of holding a vote on the impeachment inquiry." Just last week, a group of Trump's congressional allies stormed into a secure facility on Capitol Hill where it was said a Pentagon official was to testify. This intrusion caused the testimony to be delayed for approximately five hours.In regards to this impeachment inquiry of President Trump, I believe this is a long time coming. President Trump's involvement with Ukraine has been his biggest political and legal threat thus far.  To say I am shocked that Trump's presidency has surpassed its third year is an understatement. I am very intrigued to see how this impeachment inquiry plays out, and whether Trump will finish his presidency.CitationsFandos, Nicholas. “Democrats to Skip Court Fights Over Impeachment Witnesses.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/trump-impeachment-subpoena-house.html. ReplyReply to Comment