Political science

The research paper is on the UN Sustainable Development Goals.  After you read about it here https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ and you also read this UN article https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/07/1068551 you should choose one out of the 17 SDGs. For your paper use the UN sources but also independent sources, like major newspapers and magazines, and academic journals and publications from NGOs (Non government organizations). On the internet you will find all the sources you need. You should not use blogs or unverified posts on social media. In your paper, you should describe the goal and how the UN is trying to reach it by 2030. You also have to give your opinion (based on your finding in your research) on whether you think the UN will be able to reach this goal. If the answer is positive, describe the best work done to reach it so far. If your answer is negative, describe why it is not possible to reach the goal with the present strategy. What are the main problems and how could they be fixed.  Include in your paper considerations on the impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the SDGs program and, in particular, on the goal that you are addressing. Also, if you could give advice to the UN Secretary-General on this particular goal, what it would be? Add to the paper any other considerations you think are relevant to better understand the importance of this particular sustainable development goal. 2,000 words no less

queston 1-The 1st Amendment Reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” Discussion Theme: The first Amendment protects our right to free speech & free assembly, but should there be limits? In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the Supreme Court upheld the power of localities to require permits and small filing fees for mass demonstrations and protests as long as the restrictions were applied uniformly to all groups and the restrictions were intended to suppress the content of a group’s speech. Prompt: In 1977, the National Socialists of America (a Neo-Nazi group) requested a permit to parade through  Skokie, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago) wearing Nazi uniforms and advocating for White Supremacy. Skokie had a large Jewish population, some of whom were survivors of the Holocaust. The city’s residents were understandably upset and persuaded the city to deny the permit because (1) it was inflammatory and offensive and (2) because it could cause riotous behavior to break out in response to the presence of the Nazi’s. So, imagine you were on the court. How would you decide this case? Did the Nazis have the right to protest even though what they are saying is despicable, possibly traumatic, and could resort in a violent response? Should hate speech be protected by the 1st Amendment? How far is too far?  question 2- Read the article titled “The Exclusionary Rule on the Brink” by Richard Re, Washington Post Blogger. It would also be helpful to watch this video from Quimby about the case of Mapp v. Ohio. After reading the article and watching the video, use it to facilitate your discussion thread posts below by responding to the following statement. “The exclusionary rule just makes life harder for police officers who are just trying to do their job. If you have nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Stop helping criminals and start helping the police do their job.”   Using this post, explain the ways you think the exclusionary rule helps or hurts citizens. Is it legitimate to let people accused of crimes go free when the police mess up?23906327 minutes agouse this link for the second question  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/03/the-exclusionary-rule-on-the-brink/

Analyzing Texts: Harvey Milk In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay elected official in the United States when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was an advocate for human rights, especially for LGBT issues in the U.S. Milk delivered the following speech on the steps of San Francisco City Hall during a mass rally to celebrate California Gay Freedom Day on June 25, 1978. My name is Harvey Milk and I’m here to recruit you. I’ve been saying this one for years. It’s a political joke. I can’t help it–I’ve got to tell it. I’ve never been able to talk to this many political people before, so if I tell you nothing else you may be able to go home laughing a bit. This ocean liner was going across the ocean and it sank. And there was one little piece of wood floating and three people swam to it and they realized only one person could hold on to it. So they had a little debate about which was the person. It so happened that the three people were the Pope, the President, and Mayor Daley. The Pope said he was titular head of one of the greatest religions of the world and he was spiritual adviser to many, many millions and he went on and pontificated and they thought it was a good argument. Then the President said he was leader of the largest and most powerful nation of the world. What takes place in this country affects the whole world and they thought that was a good argument. And Mayor Daley said he was mayor of the backbone of the United States and what took place in Chicago affected the world, and what took place in the archdiocese of Chicago affected Catholicism. And they thought that was a good argument. So they did it the democratic way and voted. And Daley won, seven to two. About six months ago, Anita Bryant* in her speaking to God said that the drought in California was because of the gay people. On November 9, the day after I got elected, it started to rain. On the day I got sworn in, we walked to City Hall and it was kinda nice, and as soon as I said the word “I do,” it started to rain again. It’s been raining since then and the people of San Francisco figure the only way to stop it is to do a recall petition. That’s the local joke. So much for that. Why are we here? Why are gay people here? And what’s happening? What’s happening to me is the antithesis of what you read about in the papers and what you hear about on the radio. You hear about and read about this movement to the right. That we must band together and fight back this movement to the right. And I’m here to go ahead and say that what you hear and read is what they want you to think because it’s not happening. The major media in this country has talked about the movement to the right so the legislators think that there is indeed a movement to the right and that the Congress and the legislators and the city councils will start to move to the right the way the major media want them. So they keep on talking about this move to the right. So let’s look at 1977 and see if there was indeed a move to the right. In 1977, gay people had their rights taken away from them in Miami. But you must remember that in the week before Miami and the week after that, the word homosexual or gay appeared in every single newspaper in this nation in articles both pro and con. In every radio station, in every TV station and every household. For the first time in the history of the world, everybody was talking about it, good or bad. Unless you have dialogue, unless you open the walls of dialogue, you can never reach to change people’s opinion. In those two weeks, more good and bad, but more about the word homosexual and gay was written than probably in the history of mankind. Once you have dialogue starting, you know you can break down prejudice. In 1977 we saw a dialogue start. In 1977, we saw a gay person elected in San Francisco. In 1977 we saw the state of Mississippi decriminalize marijuana. In 1977, we saw the convention of conventions in Houston. And I want to know where the movement to the right is happening…. …We also have another issue that we’ve started in some of the north counties and I hope in some of the south counties it continues. In San Francisco elections we’re asking–at least we hope to ask– that the U.S. government put pressure on the closing of the South African consulate.* That must happen. There is a major difference between an embassy in Washington which is a diplomatic bureau. and a consulate in major cities. A consulate is there for one reason only — to promote business, economic gains, tourism, investment. And every time you have business going to South Africa, you’re promoting a regime that’s offensive. In the city of San Francisco, if everyone of 51 percent of that city were to go to South Africa, they would be treated as second class citizens. That is an offense to the people of San Francisco and I hope all my colleagues up there will take every step we can to close down that consulate and hope that people in other parts of the state follow us in that lead. The battles must be started some place and CDC is the greatest place to start the battles. I know we are pressed for time so I’m going to cover just one more little point. That is to understand why it is important that gay people run for office and that gay people get elected. I know there are many people in this room who are running for central committee who are gay. I encourage you. There’s a major reason why. If my non-gay friends and supporters in this room understand it, they’ll probably understand why I’ve run so often before I finally made it. Y’see right now, there’s a controversy going on in this convention about the gay governor. Is he speaking out enough? Is he strong enough for gay rights? And there is controversy and for us to say it is not would be foolish. Some people are satisfied and some people are not. You see there is a major difference – and it remains a vital difference – between a friend and a gay person, a friend in office and a gay person in office. Gay people have been slandered nationwide. We’ve been tarred and we’ve been brushed with the picture of pornography. In Dade County, we were accused of child molestation. It’s not enough anymore just to have friends represent us. No matter how good that friend may be. The black community made up its mind to that a long time ago. That the myths against blacks can only be dispelled by electing black leaders, so the black community could be judged by the leaders and not by the myths or black criminals. The Spanish community must not be judged by Latin criminals or myths. The Asian community must not be judged by Asian criminals or myths. The Italian community must not be judged by the mafia, myths. And the time has come when the gay community must not be judged by our criminals and myths. Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay, those who are visible. For invisible, we remain in limbo – a myth, a person with no parents, no brothers, no sisters, no friends who are straight, no important positions in employment. A tenth of the nation supposedly composed of stereotypes and would-be seducers of children – and no offense meant to the stereotypes. But today, the black community is not judged by its friends, but by its black legislators and leaders. And we must give people the chance to judge us by our leaders and legislators. A gay person in office can set a tone, can command respect not only from the larger community, but from the young people in our own community who need both examples and hope. The first gay people we elect must be strong. They must not be content to sit in the back of the bus. They must not be content to accept pablum. They must be above wheeling and dealing. They must be – for the good of all of us – independent, unbought. The anger and the frustrations that some of us feel is because we are misunderstood, and friends can’t feel the anger and frustration. They can sense it in us, but they can’t feel it. Because a friend has never gone through what is known as coming out. I will never forget what it was like coming out and having nobody to look up toward. I remember the lack of hope – and our friends can’t fulfill it. I can’t forget the looks on faces of people who’ve lost hope. Be they gay, be they seniors, be they blacks looking for an almostimpossible job, be they Latins trying to explain their problems and aspirations in a tongue that’s foreign to them. I personally will never forget that people are more important than buildings. I use the word “I” because I’m proud. I stand here tonight in front of my gay sisters, brothers and friends because I’m proud of you. I think it’s time that we have many legislators who are gay and proud of that fact and do not have to remain in the closet. I think that a gay person, up-front, will not walk away from a responsibility and be afraid of being tossed out of office. After Dade County, I walked among the angry and the frustrated night after night and I looked at their faces. And in San Francisco, three days before Gay Pride Day, a person was killed just because he was gay. And that night, I walked among the sad and the frustrated at City Hall in San Francisco and later that night as they lit candles on Castro Street and stood in silence, reaching out for some symbolic thing that would give them hope. These were strong people, whose faces I knew from the shop, the streets, meetings and people who I never saw before but I knew. They were strong, but even they needed hope. And the young gay people in the Altoona, Pennsylvanias, and the Richmond, Minnesotas, who are coming out and hear Anita Bryant on television and her story. The only thing they have to look forward to is hope. And you have to give them hope. Hope for a better world, hope for a better tomorrow, hope for a better place to come to if the pressures at home are too great. Hope that all will be all right. Without hope, not only gays, but the blacks, the seniors, the handicapped, the us’es, the us’es will give up. And if you help elect to the central committee and other offices, more gay people, that gives a green light to all who feel disenfranchised, a green light to move forward. It means hope to a nation that has given up, because if a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone So if there is a message I have to give, it is that I’ve found one overriding thing about my personal election, it’s the fact that if a gay person can be elected, it’s a green light. And you and you and you, you have to give people hope. Thank you very much. 1. How might starting this speech with a joke, particularly this joke, be received by the audience? Answer:  2. What impact would bringing up Anita Bryant’s statement have on the audience? What is the impact of Milk treating her comments as part of a joke? Answer:  3. What reasoning does Milk employ to explain the so-called “move to the right”? Answer:  4. Identify where Milk uses repetition in this paragraph. What might be the intended effect of this on the audience? Answer:  5. How does Milk’s address of South African consulate protests align with promoting his purpose of advancing gay rights in the US? Answer:  6. What is the emotional appeal of stating “51%…second-class citizens”? Answer:  7. How does Milk contrast “friends” in elected office and “gay people” in elected office? How might his audience react to this? Answer:  8. What does Milk mean by not judging based on “criminals or myths”? What is the effect of making this comparison with several American ethnic groups? Answer:  9. How does Milk support his purpose of advancing gay acceptance in this paragraph? Answer:  10. Describe the tone shift that takes place in this paragraph. What choices does Milk make here to appeal to his audience’s emotions? Answer:  11. How does Milk build his credibility as a worthy political figure to his audience? Answer:  12. What reasoning does Milk give for why a gay elected official could be beneficial to the nation on the whole? Answer:  13. Much of Milk’s speech is written in first person, “I” statements. What is the effect of his switch to second-person, “you” statements in the closing? Answer:

Textbook is The Enduring Democracy Kenneth J. Dautrich, David A. Yalof, Christina E. Bejarano, 2020 Sage Question What impact did Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration and the New Deal have on the office of the presidency? Change Question

Instructions Find an article in your local newspaper about a local policy issue that affects you. For example, an article concerning your county’s decision to privatize your trash collection service. Summarize the article and explain how this issue affects you. Is the article neutral? Why or why not? How might you influence this policy in the future? Be sure to include a scanned copy of the article in your submission in addition to citations. There are several free scannable apps on the market such as Scannable. If printing is an obstacle, you may include a hyperlink to the article. However, if the link breaks or can not be accessed the burden falls on you to produce that article or to risk losing points. Articles may not be more than one month old. Writing Requirements (APA format) Length: 3 full  pages (not including title page or references page) 1-inch margins Double spaced 12-point Times New Roman font Title page References page

Carrie Evans is the first ever openly lesbian elected official on a North Dakota city council. What connections can you draw between her video and the Harvey Milk speech? How are Carrie Evans and Harvey Milk similar in their speeches? How are they different? Write AT LEAST five complete sentences. Watch “LGBTQ+ Lawmaker Confronts People Protesting Pride Flag | NowThis” on YouTube https://youtu.be/MevzDmdlj1U

How do state and local party organizations contribute to a candidate’s campaign, and how important are these functions to candidates’ overall success?

For this paper, students are to answer one of the questions below in a 4-6 page paper. Other topics are possible, but must be approved in advance by the professor. Please clearly indicate which topic you are addressing.   Why is partisan polarization in our legislature is so strong, despite California having “weak” parties? Explain this seeming paradox (possibly including denying one or both of those two assertions), drawing on course material from the relevant sections of the course. Please note the way this question is phrased: if you don’t explain the polarization or argue that the legislature is not polarized, you have NOT addressed the question asked of you. Political scientists and economists often refer to the “Law of Unintended Consequences.” A version of this would read: “making changes to systems often makes worse the problem that reformers were seeking to solve.” Pick one of the following (Proposition 140 (1990), Proposition 14 (2010), or Proposition 13 (1978)), and assess whether or not the Law of Unintended Consequences applies in the case you have chosen. In other words: did reformers get what they ultimately wanted?   The paper should be between 1200 and 1800 words (about 4-6 pages). The paper should adopt a conventional font and spacing, such as 12 point Times New Roman, with double-spacing and 1-inch margins. Papers should follow a consistent citation style, such as Chicago, MLA, or APA.  Plagiarism is a very serious issue, and will not be tolerated.   Research is necessary for these papers to the extent needed to answer a question or back up a claim. The second topic, for example, is an empirical question that lends itself well to be answered by assessing what supporters of these propositions wanted (for example, by looking at their ballot arguments) and then comparing it to what we know has happened since then. Both of those parts can be discovered through research; you can look at contemporary stories or the official ballot language for what supporters wanted, for example.  That said, all three of these propositions are covered in our readings and lectures as well. The first topic asks more that you draw from course materials, but research could still be appropriate for a number of different takes on this question. Again, our course readings address this topic, but whatever angle you take may lead to you doing more research.

In your essay of at least three pages, you will first visit this web page from the federal government, Supreme Course Landmarks (Links to an external site.), https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks and pick one landmark judicial review case. Then, you will address the following.: Discuss the major political issues surrounding the case (1 page). Explain why the issue ended up being reviewed for its constitutionality (1 page). Assess whether judicial review should be used more often and the reasons behind your rationale (1 page)

Discuss the forms of corporate governance used in a different part ofthe world and how/why those structures have been developed due to differences in culture, legal systems, taxmethods and methods of measuring performance. You have seen the Anglo/American, Germanic andJapanese approaches in the materials so do not duplicate by examining those countries. You might insteadshow how a different country has adopted a modified version of one of these three models. You could insteadlook to the topic of executive incentives or the Board of Directors in terms of influence on corporategovernance. Pick one major topic for your paper and participate in the discussion forums regarding the othersections of material.