In AP style, how do you cite an online article?
Glenn Beck’s “Fundamental Transformation” is a great example of the cloudiness surrounding the call for assertive action. The article is Fundamental Transformation, but I don't think I'm supposed to put quotation marks around the title. Also... He also made a reference to the metaphor “Bursting your bubble” (…after every tragic event or bubble, America has gone back to sleep…), which is another dying metaphor. If I'm quoting directly from the article, am I doing it correctly by placing it in parenthesis without quotation marks? Are the parenthesis even right?
What motivates people to say America isn't a democracy?
NOTE: I'm assuming the reader knows a enough about how the US Government works to pass an American seventh-grade history class. Also, apologies that this answer is so long, but I really enjoyed it and it took me about an hour to write, including a lot of research, more than what is actually cited, because not all of t worked.According to Merriam-Webster, democracy is rule by the people, aka the majority of the public. That's the definition I'll be using for this answer.Let's start with the fact that it is a two-party system. That means that we are all forced to choose between voting for Republicans and Democrats. Yes, other parties can run, but as you may know, it is extremely hard for them to get into office because the laws are stacked against them. According to the Washington Post, the last time a third-party candidate won office was Abraham Lincoln in 1869, and that was only because the Whig Party crumbled due to the argument over slavery. The same article makes an excellent point for why the US government system favors two parties inherently, which I will add as a footnote here.[1]A two-party system will, by its very nature of existence, drastically limits which beliefs will be represented in Congress and the presidency. Even so, if the two parties were representatives of the public, then the government could theoretically be somewhat democratic. However, this is not the case.According to this[2] article in The Guardian, "Sixty-one per cent of survey respondents say neither political party reflects their opinions today, while 38% disagree . . . There was virtually no variation across race or class."How can you call it rule by the people when the majority of people of all classes are unhappy with the government?In addition, the idea of representative "democracy" is inherently flawed. When we vote for a few people out of the rich elite to represent our views, we have no way to know they aren't lying about what they will do and vote in their own favor instead. And often, as we are all aware, they do.And I haven't even gotten into the fact that the electoral college based on the popular vote or the fact that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. So the real question isn't why people don't think it's democratic, but why they do.Footnotes[1] Could a third-party candidate win the U.S. presidency? That’s very unlikely.[2] Most Americans do not feel represented by Democrats or Republicans – survey
Highschool AP Gov. & Politics debate on Abortion. Help?
If you're looking for statistics and information, you can't do any better than the Guttmacher Institute- they are widely respected as the best and most reputable resource on abortion and reproductive health issues around the world, plus they have very nice presentation- lots of easy "info fact sheets" and other documents that are easy to read and digest even if you're not in that field of work: http://www.guttmacher.org/ As far as pro-choice rhetoric goes, I think there are some great resources in these sites: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/ http://abortiongang.org/ Hope that helps and good luck with the debate! (Also, I'm very passionate about reproductive rights, and feel like I'm pretty knowledgeable- if you have any questions, feel free to message me!).
Why should church and state NOT be separated?
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.