Senate Bill 901…

Aside

Senate Bill 901, which was introduced by Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg and Assemblyman Felip Fuentes. It would have provided a sanctuary in the state for many immigrants who came to California illegally before 2008. Some immigrant rights groups supported it, but it never received a final vote as the Legislature ended its session on Aug. 31. However, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) expressed concerns over privacy issues related to the legislation. The president and general counsel of MALDEF said that, there were constitutional problems in having the state register, track and do background checks on immigrants. The problem could be fixed by taking out the requirement that immigrants register with the state Justice Department. In addition, the Trust Act, which would prohibit local authorities from complying with federal detention requests against suspected illegal immigrants except when a suspect has been charged with a serious or violent crime, has made this issue more complicated. One source in the middle of the talks said there was concern by some in the immigrant community that if Gov. Jerry Brown also received SB 901, he might have signed that one and vetoed the Trust Act as less far-reaching. In the end, SB 901 never reached the Senate floor.

 

As an immigrant in U.S, I see why the immigrant groups support Trust Act over SB901. SB901 does have a lot of merits. It will give sanctuary to the illegal immigrants though it needs to do background check first. And I see legitimate reasons behind that background check. There is an article in China stating that if you want to stay in U.S, it will be much easier for you as an illegal immigrant than going through the legal process. The author of that article did a calculation. If you go though immigration process to get the Permanent Residence, you need to spend a lot of money here and there are a lot of work restrictions. However, If you just work here illegally, you just need to spend some years here, waiting for sanctuary and you have salaries as a plus. It’s unfair from my point of view. So I do see why SB901 needs to do background check to give the sanctuary to better candidates. However, the SB901 would only benefit a small group of immigrants while the Trust Act protects all of us. Sometimes, I feel disappointed that because I’m an immigrant, I need to provide a lot of evidence to prove that I came to U.S legally. And basically, every institution in U.S could do that by saying that I just want to make sure that you came to U.S legally and has good credit. And if you reject the request, the police has rights to keep you into custody. I understand that U.S government needs guarantee every foreigner in U.S came here legally but I feel my privacy is not as well protected as the U.S citizens’ while we share equal human rights. That’s why I think Trust Act is of more importance than SB 901.

Big Thing in China in the summer

I went back to my country for the whole summer vacation. A lot of things happened in China, and I want to share with you.

 

1 Rainy Beijing

In the summer, there is a heavy rain in Beijing. What is unexpected is that there are casualties caused by this big rain. In the recent years, it seems that infrastructure construction became a huge project for China, and especially for the big cities, like Beijing and Shanghai. However, this big rain reveals the real problem in the infrastructure construction. A lot of areas got flooded. People get furious about the government because some ancient areas, such as the Imperial Palace doesn’t get affected at all. However, the new developed areas get flooded.

 

2 The Olympic Game

There is a famous athlete in China, called Xiang Liu. He once won the first prize of the hurdle race. However, he got injured in the last Olympic Game and finally quit the game. People start to criticize him after the last game because he made a lot of advertisement and he made a lot of money while he actually quit the game. This time, before the game, he said he got recovered and would try his best to win the game while he said he got injured again, but this time, he didn’t quit the game, instead, he walked to the end. However, most of the people think it’s a show. They start to talk about China’s sports spirit.

 

TO BE CONTINUED

finally

Finally, I can update my blog….

FB,TWITTER are blocked in China, so does wordpress.

Before I came to U.S, this censorship doesn’t bother me at all, but now, I really HATE the censorship in China.

I don’t understand. What’s the possible harmness facebook could cause.

There are so many things I want to share, but I must wait untill I am back in U.S.

SO SAD….

election voter turnout

“The voter turnout for 2008 election was broadly predicted to be high by American standards. The final total votes counted ware 131.3 million, compared to 122.3 million in 2004 (which also was the highest record since 1968, when the voting age was lowered to 18). It could reflect a turnout as high as 63.0% of eligible voters, which would be the highest since 1960.”[1]

According to “The Road to the White House”, turnout is influenced by partisan, economic, and social factors. It is also affected by laws that govern elections and by circumstances of the vote itself, such as interest in the election, the closeness of the contest, the effectiveness of the campaign, and even the weather on Election Day. The impact of these variables on the decision of whether to cast a ballot at all is the principal focus of this section. There are also psychological, social, and political influences on who comes out to vote. Interest in the election, concern over the outcome, feelings of civic responsibility, and sense of political efficacy are factors that influence voting.

 

With the Obama’s health care issues and based on the turn out of 2008, I expect the turnout in the 2012 presidential election will be greater. First, “the 2008 election saw increased participation from African-Americans. African Americans made up 11.1% of the electorate in 2004, versus 13.0% in 2008. According to exit polls, over 95% of African Americans voted for Barack Obama. This played a critical role in southern states such as North Carolina. 74% of North Carolina’s registered African American voters turned out, as opposed to 69% of North Carolinians in general, with Obama carrying 100% (with rounding) of African American females and African Americans age 18 to 29, according to exit polling.”[2] The more people have done it in the past, the more likely they will do it in the future. So I think those who vote in the 2008 would still vote in 2012. Second, Obama Care. No matter supreme court would pass the individual mandatory care or not, there is no doubt that Obama’s health care plan get a lot of attention, including both approval and opposition. If the Supreme Court passes the bill, I believe those who oppose to it would vote for the Republican candidates. Third, the economy is in recovery. But the oil price is going up. If the economy growth slow down in the following month, I believe the turn out would increase.

 

If I were a campaign adviser to President Obama, I would recommend him to increase turnout in favor of him in three ways. According to the “The Road to the White House”, there are several models regarding why people vote as they do. The first model is based assumes that individuals are influenced by their partisan attitudes and social relationships in addition to the political environment in which an election occurs. Of all the factors that contribute to the development of a political attitude, identification with a political party is the most important. As elections have become more candidate centered, so too is partisanship more influenced by the image of the party’s nominee. It is a two-way relationship. Party helps shape the image of the candidate, and candidates affect the image of the party. Moreover, the impact of candidates on partisan images can extend beyond the election itself. So President Obama should fully take advantage of the Democratic Party before the Republican Nomination Convention. He should get endorsement from the Democratic Party as many as possible to gain the party support, and then to gain the support of the Democratic voter.

 

Another model found those who switched their votes to be interested in and influenced by their own evaluation of policy, personality, and performance. They take into account their present situation, their beliefs about government, and their assessments of how the country is doing under its current leadership and will do in the future. For an incumbent president seeking reelection, accomplishments in office provide much of the criteria for evaluating how well the president has done. Other characteristics, such as trustworthiness, integrity, empathy and candor, are also important. To the extent that issue positions are not known or distinguishable between the principal candidates, their respective personal images become a stronger influence on the vote.

So Obama campaign should focus on the achievement of President Obama, such as the death of Bin Laden, the Nobel Peace Prize and the end of Iraq War. We also need to convince voters that the Health Care Reform is in the right path and the economy is recovering.

 

Third, young people tend to vote less. As people age, they become more regular voters. The reasons young people vote less are: they are more mobile and have fewer economic interests and looser political ties to the community in which they live, they have not yet developed the habit of voting, even of identifying with a political party. Obama had a lot of young voters back in 2008, and we should keep this good trend and encourage the young to vote in 2012. Moreover, Catholics, Jewish, African Americans, Hispanics, the middle class and female tend to identify with Democrats. So we should target these groups and our main issues should center this group.

 

Overall, lower turnout has hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, because a larger proportion of the Democratic Party identifiers are less likely to vote. So traditionally, the organizations at the state and local level could provide out the vote drives. We should also field volunteers to make personal contacts with potential Democratic voters such as making phone calls before the election.

 

According to the book, there are two basic models of voting behavior: retrospective and prospective evaluations. According to the retrospective evaluation, voting decisions are calculations people make on the basis of their accumulated political experience. The make these calculations by assessing the past performance of the parties and their elected officials in light of the promises they made and political events that have occurred. The prospective emphasizes the issues and looks to the future, voters compare their beliefs and policy preferences with those of the parties and their nominees, position that are closer to their own, and would more likely pursue those positions if elected. Partisan ties have also become weaker, which in turn has produced more candidate-oriented voting and to a lesser extent, more issue-oriented voting, especially at the presidential level. Patterns among demographic groups, issue stands, and electoral perceptions and choices are noted and used to explain why people voted for particular candidates. When campaigning, candidates also try to create an aura of leadership, conveying such attributes as assertiveness, decisiveness, compassion, and integrity. Theses promises created performance expectations. Candidates encourage voters to see what they want to see and believe what they want to. Disillusionment naturally sets in once a new president begins to make decisions. Some supporters feel deceived, while others may be satisfied.

 

So I think the broad themes would be economy, health care and Obama’s achievements.

 

First, the economy, I think, will be the central issue of the campaign. As we move into 2012, the economy is still in bad shape, but it is better now than it was when Obama took office.

The recession reached its depth during President George W. Bush’s final quarter in office. However, Americans’ current views of the U.S. economy also suggest some difficulty ahead for Obama. According to Gallup, for the week ending Feb. 5, 56% of Americans say the U.S. economy is getting worse, while 38% say it is getting better. Gallup’s broader Economic Confidence Index is at -25 for the week ending Feb. 5, still in negative territory, but up slightly from -27 for the month of January, and up significantly from the overall average of -37 for 2011. Evidence from scholars who analyze the relationship between the economy and a president’s re-election chances suggests that change in the economy is most important. Thus, the direction of the Economic Confidence Index in the months ahead will be a telling indicator of Obama’s re-election probabilities. So the unemployment rate, the price of gas, the stock market, and the gross domestic product matter. “Gallup’s February update of the Most Important Problem facing the country finds 71% of Americans mentioning some aspect of the economy. This high level of top-of-mind concern about the economy was also evident in 1991 and 1992, when George H.W. Bush lost his re-election bid. Similarly, in October 1980, just before Carter lost to Reagan, Americans also overwhelmingly named economic concerns — mainly inflation and the cost of living — as the most important problems facing the nation. And, in October 1976, just before Ford lost to Carter, Americans overwhelmingly named inflation and unemployment/jobs as the nation’s most important problems.”[3]

 

Second, health care. Obama’s healthcare overhaul, signed into law two years ago, is his signature domestic policy achievement. It remains a divisive issue among Americans and is likely to be a key issue ahead of the November 6 election in which he seeks a second term. The decision will land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. According to Gallup, it is even no matter the bill is passed or not. But according to LA times, “Republicans will celebrate if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals buy insurance — the least-liked part of Obama’s signature legislative achievement. A Supreme Court ruling in their favor would validate GOP charges that Obama’s plan is an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.” Right now, it already becomes a key in the election, so I think with the proceeds of health care reform, it could become the key factor that will influence the election.

Third, Obama’s achievement. Obama delivered a lot of promises in the 2008 campaign, but not much of them are achieved. According to the book, the voters should be disappointed, but according to Gallup data, Obama and Romney enjoy same popularity. I expect that after the Republican nomination, Republican nominee would use it to attack Obama.

期中

期中考终于结束了

来说说我的感想吧

Pepperdine的SPP真的是很重视教育的一个学院

学习量比较大

你可以学到很多东西

前两三个星期几乎所有的学姐跟我们都在忙碌于期中考

有的是要很长的PAPER

有的是PROBLEM SET

还有的就是普通的考试

比如说计量经济学他会分三个SECTION来考

虽然很累

但是生活很充实

 

June 4

Yesterday, I talked with one of the American friends. He asked me how I felt about the Tian’anMen Square event. A lot of Americans ask me whether I know about it and how I feel about it. I want to share with you my thoughts on this event in this post.

I didn’t have any idea about it until I went to college. The professor once mentioned the June 4th event and then refused to say more about it. So I searched online after I went home. Due to the strict censorship in China, of course I found nothing. Then I used a software to search on the foreign websites, but found different reports give us different stories. What really happened? Who gave the order? Did the army really kill the students? I doubt it.

I believe the government knows the truth but refuses to release it to the public. Every June 4th, people in Hong Kong would protest. The students in China now, still have no access to that story. Those who participate in the event either dead or fled to other countries, and refused to give the full story. Ziyang Zhao, who later be imprisoned at home for lifetime, accept an interview and told his story. Is it true? Did he get the pressure from the government to tell only part of the story? We do not know.

I don’t think there is a true report or history. Every report is influenced by the one who wrote it. Every historical event may be changed by the contemporary leaders. No matter what happened, I do think the Chinese government need to change. Obama’s slogan in 2008 is “CHANGE”. However, I think China, is the one who really needs a change.

First, there is no transparency in the election of governors. The governors get promotion because of his experience or whether he uses money to buy the position, people don’t know. And now, I do doubt people still care it or not. Great Book, is one of the courses in SPP. I learn from it without the care of people towards politics, the regimes could become dictatorship. Chinese people become more and more indifference to politics. Some people say the government tries so hard to improve the economy just to let people become indifferent to politics. When people get involved only in daily affairs, they will not care about the regime.

Second, whenever an accident happened, the government first chooses to hide it instead of dealing with it. There are too many stories about it and I don’t even want to mention it. Why did the government want to forbid FalunGong? How many people feld to U.S.A because of FalunGong and what is the government’s reaction to the protests in U.S., the government never mention it. They build the image that there is peace and no disagreements within the China. And I don’t think that’s right.

To finish, I don’t think one party or two parties has so much differences. But I do think the way in which the government try to solve a problem makes a difference. China is still a new country. He is less than 100 years old. But I do think he needs to slow down his steps, and try to see the world, to improve, to grow up into a strong man.

president debate

1980 President Debate

Date: September 21, October 28, 1980

Participants: Jimmy Carter (D), Ronald Reagan (R)

 

There are several highlights in the 1980 general election debate. The incumbent president Carter didn’t participate in the first election because of the presence of Independent candidate John Anderson. The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election. It ranked among the highest ratings of any television show in the previous decade and Reagan outperformed Carter is this debate.

 

Inflation, the energy crisis, terrorism, the troubles with America’s inner cities and defense policy (particularly nuclear weapons) are the top issues in this debate. Carter’s most memorable (and many analysts say worst) moment came at the end of a long discussion of nuclear weapons. Carter said:

“I think to close out this discussion, it would be better to put into perspective what we’re talking about. I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weaponry — and the control of nuclear arms.” Most analysts concluded this so-called “Amy speech” didn’t work. It became the focus of post-debate analysis and late-night television jokes. Reagan stressed his experience as governor, the weak economy he accused Carter of creating, and he presented a moderate, upbeat image.

 

In this debate, when Carter accused Reagan of planning to cut Medicare and Social Security Benefit, Reagan responded with the now-famous line: “There you go again.” In his closing statement, Gov. Reagan posed a simple yet devastating question: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.” According to President Carter’s Press Secretary Jody Powell‘s memoirs, internal tracking polls showed the President’s tiny lead turning into a major Reagan landslide over the final weekend.

 

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1980/index.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980

 

1988 President Debate

Date: September 25, October 13, 1988

Participants: George Bush (R), Michael Dukakis (D)

 

There were two general election Presidential debates in 1988. The first one was uneventful. But the second debate imposes large influence on the president campaign.[1]

 

CNN’s Bernard Shaw opened the debate with this question to Gov. Dukakis: “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?” Dukakis responded, “No, I don’t, Bernard. And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We’ve done so in my own state.” The question was meant to give Dukakis an opportunity to show the emotional side of him because he was seen as the “Ice Man.” Shaw thought only a very personal question could get an emotional response. But Dukakis’ passionless response was the news out of the debate. “He had taken that question numerous times,” Schroeder said. “They had prepared him for it and practiced it. But he was sick and not at his best. I’m not saying that’s an excuse, but basically he just gave the wrong answer.”[2]

 

 

1992 President Debate

Date: October, 1992

Participants: George Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), Ross Perot (I)

 

The 1992 general election debates were the first time three candidates shared a single stage in a televised debate. The second debate used “town hall meeting” approach to directly involve voters in the process. The voters are allowed to raise questions to the candidates. All four debates were held during a nine-day period, turning them into a televised “mini-series.” It has the largest audience ever to watch a presidential debate.

 

In the first debate, no one outperformed. “Perot’s plain-spoken and humorous style won him praise.” Clinton was described as cautious with the exception of his exchange with Bush over his participation in anti-Vietnam War protests in England.[3] However, it is believed that Bush failed the second debate. The questions are mainly about domestic issues and the economy, which were seen as Bush’s weaker areas. There was only one question on international affairs (Bush’s strength).

 

In addition, Bush o checked his wristwatch on camera in the midst of the debate, while it’s almost finished. It was the telltale sign of a man made uneasy—or, at least, bored—by an audience member’s question about how a deep recession had personally affected him. The then president’s display of impatience seemed to speak volumes more than his awkward response.[4] While Bill Clinton showed with seeming ease when he responded to the questioner. “Tell me how it’s affected you again,” he said as he walked up to her and looked straight into her eyes. “Clinton steps in and empathizes, empathizes, empathizes,” says University of Pennsylvania political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson—coauthor of unSpun: Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation. “So it’s declared a victory for Clinton.

After the third debate, A CNN/USA TODAY news poll found that viewers thought Perot had won. Opinions, however, were tied between Clinton’s and Bush’s performances; 28 percent thought Clinton had done the best job, 28 percent Bush, and 37 percent said Perot.

 

My Opinion on President Debate

 

Presidential debates have been a symbol of American politics for a long time, but their actual impact on elections is debatable. Many journalists, candidates, and a few scholars believe debates have substantial and important effects. President Reagan echoed this general point when he said of the 1984 campaign versus Walter Mondale, “I almost blew the whole race during my first debate”. Most scholars, however, remain unconvinced that general election debates have any significant impact on vote choice. General election debates generally have only “minimal effects” because people’s preexisting attitudes, especially party identification and voters’ candidate preferences, strongly influence their perceptions of what occurs during the debate.[5]

However, I do think president debates have been a valuable addition to presidential campaigns, as long as the candidate is fully prepared. “Presidential candidate debates have a significant impact not just on voter sentiments but on media sentiments”, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. I think sometimes the candidates just made some statements irrationally and without deliberation. If the candidate could speak explicitly and logically, it serves a good purpose in allowing the public to learn more about the candidates and their positions. The debating style is very important. Humor is a good asset. If the candidate could not debate properly, it will be a setback and media will not show any mercy on their mistakes. If I would change how it’s conducted, I would like to see more questions raised by the college students and public policy students, because I think the young is the future. By doing this, we could encourage more young people to participate in the politics and presidential campaign votes. Public Policy students are really engaged in this field and have academic study. So we are more able to raise thoughtful and meaningful questions that we


[4] George H.W. Bush Checks His Watch During Debate With Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, By Alex Markels http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/a-damaging-impatience

[5] “How a Presidential Primary Debate Changed Attitude of Audience Members”

By Mike Yawn, Kevin Ellsworth, Bob Beatty, and Kim Fridkin Kahn