Japanese Internment Camp Research help, please??
Hello, I may need alittle help on a research project on Japanese Internment Camps. I just need some good research sites where I can find some good info on this topic that is easy to read. Unfortunately, I also have to make a bibliography for the websites I researched at. It has to contain: Name of website. Editor/Author. Date edited. Name of Organization. Date of access. Web address. I would really appreciate your help. Because I really don't know why the hell my ENGLISH II teacher has to give us a project like this that involves difficult research... So remember, I need some good websites on research on Japanese Interment Camps that contained the information for the bibliography example I showed above. *If it doesn't have anything unimportant on it like, Date of access or Editor/Author, its ok ^_^ THANKS:)
Will the American left and right be able to accept each other’s differences and move forward together?
Joseph McGinley wants to know:“Will the American left and right be able to accept each other’s differences and move forward together?”Well, if this question on Quora, and the responses I received so far to it, are any indication then the answer is a resounding: NO!Why don't right wingers and gun nuts join with their "patriot" brethren and murder all the democrats and liberals, why don't they just start the war and stop pretending to respect other citizens right to their own beliefs?Eric Dillon's answer to Why don't right wingers and gun nuts join with their "patriot" brethren and murder all the democrats and liberals, why don't they just start the war and stop pretending to respect other citizens right to their own beliefs?I have asked questions trying to find middle ground only to be ignored, or have my character impugned.I have privately asked friends (on the left side of the spectrum) to clarify positions and don’t hear back from them. The most prominent one that stands out has been almost two years of crickets.I would love to find some middle ground, to get back to where we could have differing opinions and not be afraid of receiving a brick to the head for daring to believe something different.But to date I don’t see the American Political Left, nor their Media Minions, acting in good faith.The incessant din of how evil, xenophobic,homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and/or any of a number of other pejoratives that are hurled toward conservatives has reached the point where I simply and truly don’t have any more shits to give.I am done being painted with a brush the size of the Empire State Building simply because I’m not on the Left side of the American Political Spectrum.Honest to God, Kimiko’s image is what I see the future looking like.Perish the though that an American city could become the next Aleppo, but from where I sit I no longer see the other side of the table as having any good faith left to show or give.I will sit here, hoping that folks can show me some decency, it my hope that someone from the American Political Left can show they are willing to come to the table to meet in the middle.
What is the most outdated part of the U.S. constitution?
Which parts of the US Constitution do you think are outdated and why?I can think of three passages that are outdated:…until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.Article II, Section 2 (Explaining the initial, pre-census, makeup of the House)The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars per person.Article II, Section 9 (preventing Congress from limiting the Atlantic Slave Trade before 1808)The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.Article V (What's needed to ratify the Constitution)These are all outdated because they no longer apply.
If voting age were lowered to 5 years old, what would the campaigns look like?
Not much different.Why?Because Children under 10 or so don’t have the means to go to polling stations and vote. They also probaly don’t have any motivation to do so and its very likely that they would just do whatever their parents told them to do anyway.If they do vote it would be because their parents brought them to the polling station. So they would be with their parents, and since the kids are 5 years old and politically inept they wouldn’t be able to make the decision themselves they will ask the nearest adult for advice, this time being their parents.At most I’d think we’d see more of this:Perhaps Presidents would make stops at schools wherever they were already giving speeches in an effort to win over school children.Now as for people 10 and over, at this point its not too unlikely that they have motivation to vote; at this point the children will have developed strong opinions. And since 40 million people are ages 10–19, the voting population would change to the left just slightly.Why just slightly?Well children ages 10–15 still rely on their parents, so thats a confounding variable. Ages 18–19 already are part of the electorate, so they’re irrelevant to the topic we’re discussing. So that means only 10% of people ages 10–19 are going to form their own new unique voting demographic. So thats around 4 million people— by no means a small amount but its likely that many of them won’t vote.Youths have the highest political abstention rates of all demographics and its likely that people ages 16 to 17 will be the same way. They’re also split— not 50/50, as younger generations tend to be more liberal. So the electorate might shift slightly to the left.So for campaigning what does it mean? It means that its likely that it won’t change much. Politicians campaign where they need to win votes— especially swing states. The oppurtunity cost of giving a speech at a school is giving a speech at a rally. The latter is arguably the better choice; you’d be having your voice heard by more people many of which may be parents of youths and thus have influence on their vote aswell.I think presidential campaigns won’t change much. We could see a few more speeches at schools but they would all be supplementary and not the center piece of a political strategy. The most lucrative demographic for politicians remains to be senior citizens: they have free time, are politically active and usually have money to donate.So maybe we’ll see more of this:But no less of this:
What Is The Alternative to the Electoral College?
See http://www.nationalpopularvote.com and http://www.everyvoteequal.com The National Popular Vote bill, if passed by enough states, would make the Electoral College irrelevant - and effectively have the country go to a popular vote system. So far it has been passed by both houses of the legislature in seven states: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and California. The bill was vetoed by the Republican governors of Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont and California - but it was enacted over the governor's veto in Hawaii - so it is now the law in 4 states. California's Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it in 2006 - but the California Senate and Assembly just passed slightly different versions of the bill again, so he will probably get another chance to veto it in the near future. In 2004, if Kerry had received 60,000 of the votes that went to Bush in Ohio, he would be president, despite losing the popular vote by a large margin. The question that should be on everybody's mind should be: Why are Republican Governor's afraid of going to a popular vote system? A National Popular vote system would increase voter turnout, because every vote would be important .- not just the votes of swing states. My guess is that the Republican governors who have vetoed the bill are afraid that the Republicans would lose power if we went to a National Popular vote system, because Republicans tend to do better when voter turnout is low. One thing is clear - whether we should keep the Electoral College is not a big state - small state issue. The governor of the largest state, California, vetoed the bill, as did the governors of 3 small states (Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii.).
Why is the Libertarian Party not significant in the United States?
There are two sorts of reasons. Structural and ideological.StructuralThird parties of all stripes have a tough time of things in winner takes all systems. This is observed the world over. And at congressional and presidential level, the American system is an especially pure winner takes all system. So, libertarians who actually care about power tend to work within the Republican Party.IdeologicalLibertarians are extremists. I don't necessarily write that as a criticism. In many ways I am an extremist! But, they hold a bunch of views that many Americans find horrific. An easy example would be their views on the Civil Rights Act. Yes yes, I am aware of all the high falutin' philsophy that leads libertarians to come to the conclusions they do, but all that ain't worth spit in practical politics. When you are explicitly saying that a lunch counter should be able to have a sign that says "blacks not welcome" in 2016, everyone else thinks you are a lunatic. Like all extremists, libertarians are prone to factional in-fighting about who can be the most ideologically pure. They have a lot in common with the far left in this regard (See also, their devotion to philosophical dogma). This again comes across as ridiculous to anyone who is not a true believer. Libertarians are masters of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Why do liberals hate law abiding citizens with guns?
First of all Guns are made to Hunt, and protect you. Wheather a liberal knows what a gun is used for is irrelevant. They think it's the source of criminal intent for everybody. Guns should be outlawed! Right then the same thing could happen in California that is happening in Mexico! Don't Laugh People like Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi would support that, but each have a way of getting out of harms way screw the poor person that has to go by these laws. No matter what the law says I will indeed protect myself from THUGS!