Final Essay: Federal vs Unitary

The two countries that we have been looking into for this term was the United States of America and The United Kingdom. These two countries are known for having huge influences to other countries in means of development and modernization. These two countries have been retaining wealth throughout the years as well. 

Federalism is mainly about having sub groups of people governing in different parts of the country or local governments. These people then have a local representative that addresses issues that happen with in their state or locality.  

In the United States of America, since the founding of the country and with the end of the civil war, federalism has been present in the United States. Power shifted from each state towards the evolving national government. Federalism was influential political movement that arises out of discontent with the Articles of Confederation that limited the power of the federal government. The federal government was said to have been incapable of raising an army to quell a rebellion. In 1787, delegates met at a Constitutional convention and generated ideas of a bicameral legislature. James Madison said in a pre-convention memorandum to delegates that a stronger central government was necessary because state legislatures cannot be trusted to take enlightened views on national affairs. This convention immediately dropped its original mandate and set about constructing a new Constitution of the United States of America. Those who opposed the Constitution were considered Anti-Federalists. With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first Federalist movement and the Anti-Federalist movements were exhausted, so they dispersed. As soon as the first Federalist movement dissipated, a second one sprang up to take its place. This one was based on a stronger national government, a loose construction of the constitution and a more agricultural economy. There were other federalist movements in the United States such as Dual Federalism, cooperative federalism, and new federalism. New Federalism was characterized as a gradual return of power t the states. The federal government had granted money to the states, limiting the states o use funding for specific programs. The government introduced a practice of giving block grants, freeing state governments to spend money at their own discretion.

Federalism in the United States of America has been around for a long time because the United States is a big country. A single unitary government would not be able to handle such a big country without the help of each state government. 

Now, if the Philippines were to have a federalist government, we won't be able to sustain that kind of government because a federalist form of government would be too expensive for a third world country such as the Philippines. Also given that the Philippines though it may be an archipelago, has smaller geographical size than of the United States of America. Also there would be a huge chance of leaders from other parts of the country wanting to benefit more than others.  Filipinos are then thinking less of being nationalistic and improving for the country. In line with this, this may also cause more corruption hence more social issues and eventually a failing economy. it wouldn't be practical especially now that we deal with many social issues that are in line with corruption. 

On the other hand we have unitary authority. It is when power is handled by a single unit/ government.

The United Kingdom's form of government is ran by parliament headed by the prime minister.  however, the United Kingdom does not follow any constitution. The prime minister has power that no one could object to but then parliament is able to cut him out of position if found that he is not doing right then a vote of no confidence would then take place. Also people can go against the prime minister if they want to.  In law making it is only passed to two parts of parliament before it would be accepted or vetoed hence making laws put to action easily. 

The Philippines holds the risk of people abusing the right to remove people in power because it would be easy.  Although in terms of having only 1 body to govern would be ideal because they would be responsible for solving social issues around the country collectively. Socially, it would be more organized because the power governing over us would be responsible and reliable for and social issue and making sure that people get what they need.  

-Malangen, Rivera, Aquino

My Utopia

My group defined Utopia in which there is peace and unity among people and nature. The video presented the Utopia we pictured—an outdoor peaceful community.  The definition of Utopia varied in our class; other groups presented different views of their Utopia. The common factor among our Utopia’s was that there was a presence of peace and love in a community.

Though in my class there was a harmony with our views with regards to how we see our Utopia, other people might see it not as ideal as we see it. Everybody has different perspectives, thus everyone has their own definition of their Utopia. In the world, there are a lot of social issues that are prevalent in majority of societies and indeed, for me, it is not the Utopia I picture.

In most parts of the world, and most importantly, my country, there is an abundance of freedom and rights; freedom and rights are good, in fact. There is freedom of speech, freedom to complain, freedom to do what is pleased, right to vote and etc. But despite the good factors said earlier, why is it that the cause of this is just poverty and corruption? It is because people are abusive of the good things they hold. People tend to abuse their power, which leads to other people’s suffering. There is a lack of justice and fairness among people; they tend to have self-interest. It is prevalent that people in the world are selfish, because if all people were generous, there would not be any deprived persons.

My ideal society is where all people know how to be fair and they know how to share. People here are non-abusive and seek always for what is right and good not only for themselves, but for others as well. The only ones that control the world’s state are the people. People have knowledge; God gave people knowledge in able to take care and make good of the shelter He gave us—the world.

The people control the world; they are held responsible on how the world goes. People created justice, peace and generosity but we also created injustice, wars, and selfishness. A world in which abuse is not present would lead to peace and harmony among people; there would be justice.

To achieve my ideal society would be hard, the fact that not everyone in the world is warm-hearted. The only way to achieve this is through building a better and educated youth—in able to out number the people who have caused hardships and destructions in communities. The kind-hearted people must unite in able to abolish the social issues caused by other people.

To promote a better youth, the study of justice and generosity must be strictly implemented in all schools. They must practice these habits in every encounter they are to experience. The youth must also help the less fortunate by feeding them and educating them as well. They must teach the things they learn from their school, especially the values taught to them. People, young or old, deprived or wealthy, must all come together to help serve each other for a better community.

Furthermore, in my ideal society, there should be an abundance of knowledge in the science and the arts. Education is well preserved in able to build a better, wiser and intelligent community. This will enable a community to rise in terms of technology and new inventions that would help people (medicines, etc.). As said earlier, if generosity is well valued—all people would be educated; people would be able to share their knowledge.

My Utopia would be very hard to achieve because not all people think the way I do. Some might disagree and some would agree but revise some of the things I mentioned. My Utopia is like a fairytale, but like most fairytales, it can come true. Somehow, the things I’ve mentioned are present on societies. One can see it in UNICEF and GAWAD KALINGA, but is it enough, really? I believe not. I believe that all people should be involved in helping other people. It is the only way to achieve my ideal society. The way some people might look at it, my society is unachievable, but it can be achieved. It will just take a long time, and when this time arrives, people would be able to see that it is not that hard to have a community that has peace and harmony among its people.

Going back to the real state of the world, it seems so disappointing to know that there are many lacks of peace and justice. I believe that no one should accept this and must do something about it. One must never be satisfied with the kind of place we are living now, because truth be told, it is not a world God intended to create. God created all things with peace and harmony; He created harmony among people and nature. What did the people do with His gifts? They abused it. Every human that is born has a purpose in life, and it is to make the world better.

For the state of the world, and especially my country, my Utopia is simply where all people know how to take a leap of faith and change what is wrong. The presence of people who take their lives as a purpose to help the world become a better place is what makes my Utopia possible.

-tapiocagirl

When The Going Gets Tough, the Tough Starts to Spill-up

When The Going Gets Tough, the Tough Starts to Spill-up

By: Cobus

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/07/07/rizaldy-ampatuan-denies-becoming-state-witness-165606

It is the root cause of why Philippines became a threat, not just to humanity, but as well as the Media men. It was written on a big scale and that justice still roar its way up to solving the case. It jumbled the thriving arts in the Philippines. That shook worldwide. And now this is History, It is “The Maguindanao Massacre”

           The Maguindanao Massacre is consisted of mainly Politicians whom committed inhumane murdering of Media Men. They were one of the most prominent people Mindanao has to offer, and they control much of the societal groups which is (Ampatuan) sponsored by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. As news unraveled their fondness to Mrs. Arroyo, it was soon discovered that they also control the armed forces of Mindanao also; they were exposed as a corrupt leader in Mindanao being dragged in Mrs. Arroyo’s name which was thrown hundreds of issues about her Presidency. Incompetent as it shows but they’ve been

           57 people was killed inhumanely and was dumped in a big pit that was shown globally, there were headless people, naked, they were a huge mess, their life was pulled out by those bastards. As soon as this happened justice half-heartedly took over the Ampatuans were convicted of murder. They were sent immediately to jail and became a hot topic. Unfortunately news popped-out that they were treated bias according to officers they were given more comfort than thos of the normal cell mates. Recently, Andal Ampatuan decideds to open up what he thinks will lift his name off the post. He decided to become a “State Witness” of the crime against his brother and father Andal Ampatuan Sr and Andal Ampatuan Jr. now that they are faced with this kind of situation I’ve decided that they are apt to be in my blog where The Prisoner’s Dilemma is applicable on their situation.   

           I divided the different groups into two groups to which their interests are bind together by one thinking. Also, what are their hierarchies in the society that they belong to. I decided to name them as: Andal Ampatuan’s side and Rizaldy Ampatuan’s side also known as “AA” and “RA”. AA is composed of Andal Ampatuan Sr. and Andal Ampatuan Jr. While, on the other side it is Rizaldy Ampatuan.

This is how the preference ranking goes:

A)     If AA will confess that he did the crime which is murdering 57 people

Then the sentence of the crime will shortened the period of him being jailed. And the other group will be sent free

B)       If RA will confess that he did the crime which is murdering 57 people

Then the sentence of the crime will shortened the period of him being jailed. And the other group will be sent free

C)       If RA and AA will confess that both of them committed the crime and the other side denies it, one           

         will be free and the other one will be sent in jail and will stay in jail longer than what is righteous of    

  their crime for obstruction of justice.

D)     If  both groups deny the crime, enough circumstantial evidence is applied to put both of the groups in

Jail

E)      If both of the groups confess to the crime, then their sentence will be lessen to several years.

           These occurrences are consistent because the preference ranking above was based on how The Prisoner’s Dilemma works not just for both groups, but the application of it as a whole. These Preference rankings is inclined with how people thinks and how his best interests will be affected by any decisions made by him Also, in AA and RA’s group Media should be considered as one of the leading focuses that they should watch for, since what happened was a gruesome killing of those prominent Media Men in The Philippines along with the Politician Mangudadatu.

 The factors that should be considered for them to pursue their self-interest are as follows:

          We should consider that Prestige, Power and Wealth always play the biggest role of them all. One might attain Prestige but doesn’t have that much access on Wealth and Power; they might attain Wealth but not Prestige as well as attaining Power but not much of Prestige and Wealth. These are the effect of how they roll in a Society. it is attainable maybe by ancestral connections or attainable by earning them yourself. In these three biggest roles Money, Political standing/Hierarchies and Connections to people who has those three, intervenes and starts to collaborate with one another. By collaborating these lifts the thinking of a human and raises his Social status. As an application to this, these people pursue their self-interest because Money, Fame and Prestige are their life. These factors help them to push-thru their careers and help them to access things that aren’t accessible for all people.

           The Prisoners Dilemma is an effective way of calculating the expected thought or move of a person that he or she might do when he’s in between fragile moments that is a life changing one. We should always consider the best interest in taking a look on the matter as well as how his society progress thru time because his or her upbringing affects most of his decisions. This inclination to interest and upbringing should always be a factor in this situation otherwise we might get the wrong conclusion. In the end, we should always be in the right track, not wealthy in life, but in morals.

Yeahtopia.

I’ve always taught that an ideal society, in my view, would be a place where one could express him/herself freely. All rights of a person are put into account and that there are no social pressures for doing things in a specific way. No one is judged badly but people are given credit for the good things that they do. A person is able to maximize him/herself whilst serving or helping others. People would then be treated equally because he/she makes contributions to society by having fair share of work. Also people would be given respect as an individual countering the flow of people going for trends and such because not everyone can be able to do things others can but what one does is still considered important. Doing things will not be considered as labor because people would then love what they do. The only restrictions to my ideal society would be doing bad things against someone and mistreating or disrespecting life and others.

 The perfect society for me would have to revolve around individuals being productive. Individuals would have been able to maximize their time and talents to the benefit of themselves and others. Productivity may spark the improvement of one society. It also sets standards and possibly influence to others to do more. With that people are able to do more of what they want then what they should because productivity grows and it would be a regular act to people. A society will also be prosperous given that people are productive. This society will be able to attain improvement thus creating better life for the people living in it. It would then make people living in this society’s lives easier.

 Thinking about a society like that would mean that that society would have fewer problems because everyone contributes. There would be a solution to poverty because people would then have to contribute something to society because all of us have talents. Also, people would then have fair share of resources and would be able to acquire needs easily. It may also answer to corruption because there is also a notion of people being selfless because they do things for others too. If you think about it corruption is happening due to people being selfish and wishing to only again for themselves. In my ideal society people wouldn’t have to greedy because all is given what I due to them, not only that but the people’s needs are answered to by the government. People in an ideal society would never think of abusing what is given to them rather they accept only what is due to them and what is rewarded to them for their actions. People are free although they are still accountable for their actions. Furthermore, people may be punished for doing wrong to others because this would be unjust if left alone.

An ideal society’s surrounding for me would have to be simple but elegant. Also natural resources are to be maximized and modern man made sights would have to be eco friendly. People would value nature because it provides for them.  This can also help lessen environmental issues such as global warming that affect people badly. This can also help in maintaining good health of people as well as better looking surroundings thus having more resources for better livelihood. In line with keeping our surroundings green, my ideal utopia would also help by recycling and using organic materials. As we are now having issues on environmental changes in weather and cleanliness, this would be of big help. An ideal utopia would have to be clean and safe. People in an ideal society would have to have respect for each other, his/her surroundings, and all living things. People would then be happy and have less problems because his/her surroundings give him/her comfort in knowing that nothing bad can go wrong or there is a minimal very chance of danger.

The government will be made of leaders that serve people because their role would be being able to provide people the proper and best needs to nurture their talents as individuals. The government should also be able attend to the needs of the people and by doing this they too are also being productive and reaching out to others. The government helps keep the society in order and makes sure that everyone is doing fine. By this I mean everyone is able to gain necessities easily because they deserve it. The government should be able to do their jobs right and if ever in lack, they should run projects to help others. The government should also keep an eye on what people do may it be good or bad. They are the ones in charge of dealing with social issues if any come up and must be able to find solutions to them with the help of the citizens. They government’s job is also to be able to show the people what is going on in society and what people can do, as citizens, to make things better. The government should also be open to what people think and what they wish for the country. Also they are accountable for allocating resources and solving economical problems. They should also make sure that the decisions they make are for the benefit of the people in the society. This society is mainly run by everyone but through the help and leadership of the government it is maintained orderly.

-Jerrpanx

Perfect

The ideal society presented by our group was peaceful, equal, and where people are united as one. Our society also presented itself as an environment-friendly place.

A utopia is a place of perfection, a place that is ideal. I can’t really say that what our group perceived as ideal was ideal to that of the other groups because we all have different views and perceptions about certain things. Some, may think that an ideal society is a society that is strict and limit one’s freedom like communism while I, on the other hand, believe in controlled freedom. Controlled freedom is by definition freedom with certain limitations. The Philippines is a country that practices this belief poorly. Everyone should be free but the kind of limitations I’m talking about is that some of our laws should be enforced properly. Discipline is no longer evident in the day-to-day lives of the Filipino people. This kind of attitude of our countrymen both bothers and saddens me. If we want the Philippines to progress as a nation, we must start with ourselves. We must change our actions for the betterment of our country.

A few of my block mates and I went to a plastic factory for one of our projects. You know how we were taught that plastics are bad for the environment because they’re not biodegradable? The woman whom we interviewed in the plastic plant told us that the plastics they produce are 100% recycled. The government thought about banning plastics more specifically “sando” bags for they are a factor in the clogging of canals and, therefore, causing floods. She lectured us that it is not the plastics fault that floods are caused; it is the lack of initiative of the people to learn how to dispose of plastics in the correct manner. She said that if we only knew how to dispose it properly, plastics wouldn’t be blamed for floods in the Philippines. This experience made me think of what the government can do for us to achieve an ideal society that is environment friendly. Our leaders could enforce a law that will make all Filipinos who use plastics to throw it in the proper place. Then, those plastics will be sent to a factory where it will be recycled to become recycled plastic.

Something as simple as throwing trash in the right place could really help us in achieving a society that is environment friendly and, in my opinion, ideal. Another thing pointed out in our Utopia is the fairness and equality of people. Equality is when every single person is treated the same way; a world with no biases, no judgments, no class, no race, just people.  This may not be an attainable Utopia but it is, for me, ideal. Social stratification or the division of people based on class is something that emerged a long time ago. We sometimes cannot help it to think a certain way of a certain group of people because of the way we were raised and born into the world. The saying that the world is unfair is not true; it’s the people in the world who are treated unfairly and cause unfairness. My personal ideal society would be a society where there would be no unfairness and everyone treated fairly.

When I was a senior in high school, I visited the Correctional Institute for women for our outreach program. I met a lot of women who claimed to have been there because of the injustices committed against them because they were poor and had no money to bail themselves out while there were only a select few who belong to a middle class family inside the correctional. This made me think of the injustices people go through because of social stratification. The poor go to jail for doing the same thing the rich people do. Where is the justice? So, for me, a Utopia should be fair and just. For us to make this happen, even little by little, we must try our best to treat others kindly and with the same respect and dignity as everybody else; no one above and no one below.

This is what I think a Utopia should be. It may not be the same as that of the others but it is mine. This Utopia is the kind of place someone like me would want to live in, a place where we are free and happy. All of us are free and happy. This is my Utopia; my perfect, ideal, and wonderful society.

                                                                                                -behindthescenes

Take A Stand

I was in 4th year high school when I really go into the whole PRO vs ANTI RH Bill debate. 

I'll confess i knew little about this bill; I knew it was about:

• legalizing the use of contraceptives such as birth control pills and condoms 
• providing people, as early as kids in grade school and so forth, with proper education about proper reproduction and how you can opt not to get a girl pregnant. also, teaching women about their cycle and what they can do to prevent getting pregnant
• allocating money for contraceptives to be given to people
• legalizing abortion/ killing unborn babies 

Seems harsh don't you think, but look at society now. 

Our country's been dealing with social issues such as over population and personally, i think it's time to take action. Having this bill put to account does not really imply that just because it's allowed, you have to do it. People are still accountable for their own actions; you can still say no to premarital sex, you can still say no to using contraceptives and no to having your kid aborted. Yes, I am PRO RH Bill and also a Catholic. Religion adds up to this ANTI vs. PRO argument by convincing people that it goes against respect for life. My argument, isn't it that if you respect life you would want to be able to provide proper nurture and needs to help it grow the way it deserves to? And in present, is that what most people get? My faith is really against abortion and so am i but parents would be accountable for the child that they brought into this world. I remember having seminars in church that urged us to be anti RH bill. At some point I find it wrong that they're forcing us to go with what they believe because I believe that people should be making decisions for themselves. It’s like saying you have to go against something because your religion is. I think they should just discuss their side and reason to why we should support it or not. But in my experience the speakers just emphasized that my faith is against it and so should I because it is morally wrong. 

Another argue made by the speaker was that she finds it wrong that kids should be educated about this at a young age because they don’t know anything about it and it would be wrong to disrupt their innocence.  

I remember having a debate about legalizing this Bill in one of my Social Studies class when i was in high school. My teacher asked one of my classmates to why is she ANTI RH bill and her argument was just because her religion says no to it because it goes against respect for life. He argued that people living in the slums know nothing about family planning. Why? Because they don't have money to get proper education. Now given that that isn't provided by the government (such as present) who would tell them that what they're doing is wrong? Sure some people should learn the hard way but what harm would it be to give them a warning or knowledge to what might happen next.

I also asked a few family members to what their stand is and none of my family members are for it. As a side note, they do not know I am for it, I just really wanted to know why they were against it. Anyway, they are against it because they think that natural family planning should be done. I agree too but I thought how would people in the slums know what family planning is if they can't even afford food. Yes values are implicated but I think we should take into consideration the status of our country. 

Media's role in this is to show to the public familiar faces, if not people who are of influence that are in favour and those who are against it. People who are ignorant to even take a personal stand on this issue just go with whoever they think is of influence and sides with them. Also there is a sense of false advertisement wherein they hide some details to make it seem acceptable and right. I think the media should discuss this issue presenting both sides of being anti or pro so the people would know what the intentions of each side are. I also think that it would be able to minimize issues on the account because stating points of each side would set a clear view for people and would let them be able to decide accurately. Government officials are also factors of deciding for this. It would depend on their up bringing and what their purpose or intentions are. Also I think that they should educate the youth with proper values and well it is the duty of the parents to be able to teach their kids that.

My pros and cons this bill are:

Pros:

It could minimize overpopulation in our country and also it can minimize poverty too due to the population’s reduction. People in the slums would be given proper education and the youth wouldn’t be as promiscuous because they would know the outcome of their actions given that they were educated about sex.

Cons:

People would abuse the use of contraceptives and it would decrease morality by being sexually active.

The purpose of legalizing this bill is aimed at the betterment of our country by trying to solve over population  but I think that people are just looking at the bill in a negative perspective that they don't realise that our country's social issues are far worse.  Other countries that follow after this bill have been able to solve their issues on overpopulation. The effects of overpopulation in out country are far worse if you think of it to the extent that people here experience malnutrition. Severe action must be done, if not tried.

-Jerrpanx

Prisoner's Dilemma Solving the RH Bill.

         What can a prisoner’s dilemma do to help our government officials make choices? Well, for one, this can help solve the most controversial topic we have in the present, the Reproductive Health Bill (HB4244) also known as the RH bill. There are two opposing parties regarding this bill. It is between the government and the Church. It is under the Philippine law (Article II, Section 6), that there is a clear separation between the Church and the state; though, being in a catholic country, it is inevitable to apply this law. Most of the time, the Church, can interfere with the laws being put up in our government especially when they think that it is a must. 

          The Reproductive Health Bill was first introduced by Hon. Edcel Lagaman to provide for a comprehensive policy on responsible parenthood and also to regulate the increasing population we have today. The Church was against this law because then the value of the natural family planning would not be practiced. They said that it would kill unborn babies which are against pro-life. There have been debates between them together with their supporters whether to pass this law or not. This is where the prisoner’s dilemma takes place. Now, we would be able to see the possible outcomes between the government and the Church through their self-interest.

           The two possible actions regarding the situation given is to either both join and work together to weigh their interests or to both follow their own personal perceptions. If they both cooperate with each other, amendment of the bill can happen at the same time, both groups get an edge on this decision. Both of them would be able to benefit from their self interest. Then of course, both get what they want. On the other hand, when the both of them decide to follow their own self interest, then there would be a possibility that chaos would happen. Let us just say that the government would approve the bill then rallies from the supporters of the Church would be evident all over. The Church has the power to do something the state would not want. An example to this would be that, the Church can give a bad publicity to its followers that would result for them not to vote the government official in the elections anymore. It would result to a bad impact to some government officials which they do not want to happen. 

           In terms of the choices given in the prisoner’s dilemma, there are four possible choices each group can pick. A win-win, win-lose, lose-win and lose-lose situations. The four choices have their own benefits and consequences together with them.

          The government’s most preferred choice would definitely pass the bill since economically speaking; it would help lessen our population. It would give the women of today the option to decide for their own bodies. It would help people be more aware and help them be more knowledgeable. When this happens, it would create a huge gap between the Church and the government. Church would definitely protest against them. Their second option would bring them to an equal cooperation with the Church for the betterment of the both. If this would happen, then there would be few adjustments in the bill at the same time, get the interest of the Church. The third option would be to simply ignore the bill. Ignoring the bill would bring the Church to keep quiet and forget about the whole thing. Lastly, losing is their very last resort. They do not want this to happen because then they would be inferior of the Church which is the last thing they would want to happen. 

          The other group, which is the Church, would definitely choose not to pass the bill. Being a Catholic country, again, they would care for the people to practice morality everywhere. In the bill, the Church contradicts the content of it since for them it provokes people to disobey the Catholic teachings. It would ruin young people’s minds. Their second option is the same with the government’s; to cooperate together to come up with an equal decision. Both would benefit if this would happen. The third option would not to mind the bill since it would be useless to fight for it anymore and their very least preferred choice would be to pass the bill. If this happens, they would lose, giving a bad reputation to the name of the Church. 

          Until now there is no decision made between the two groups. I believe that the prisoner’s dilemma has once again helped a situation occurring in our world today. It has given opportunities for people to decide. The benefits and consequences are both weighed with its help. Now the both groups together with their supporters can finally see the pros and cons. They can judge facts based from each other without jumping into conclusions. 

         In my own opinion, I think that the government should change some parts of the said bill in order for the Church to approve it. With this, both the government and the church would benefit. In reality, this law is needed in order to keep our population from increasing though we again have to consider the Church’s interest. It would be a win-win situation for both government and the Church if they choose to cooperate and still pursue their self-interest and yet reach the mutually-beneficial outcome.

 -panda