Political Science

Within a community, there are issues that affect the majority of the members.  When an effort is made to have the community come to a consensus in order to influence a particular strategy, this can be viewed as a public strategy.  Generally a public policy will be any cause of action that is arrived at after consultation with all stakeholders and an agreement arrived at, after a common ground is arrived at among the players.

This paper will look at factors that influence public policy with a view to identifying how they inter-marry.  It will look at the influences wielded by different players on public policy procedures and how it can be countered or natured.

Discussion
Given that a public policy is a particular course of action arrived at as a result of discussion and horse trading especially in the political realm that ensures all parties have a stake in the policy.  Ultimately each side in a discussion must be able to have a stake in order to justify the process.

In public policy debates, there are no wrong or right answers nor are there permanent positions.  In public policy formulation, everything is fair game if progress is to be achieved.  There will never be a final solution or problem.  It is as dynamic as the participants and stakeholders being affected by the policy.

The legislature itself is the biggest shaper of public policy.  Due to the fact that it is a body of elected representatives of the people, through their discussions and the decisions made, they are continuously creating or amending public policy.  They are the foremost authority in the generation of public policy.  By their nature of their work, they are supposed to represent their local constituents at the national level and make sure the views of their constituents are at all times considered in all decision making.
The justice system on its part ensures the all public policies are actually good for the public.  These policies cannot be against the constitution of a country.  It is their duty to make sure that the rule of law is followed by ensuring that all decisions made are within the boundaries of what is agreeable by the majority.  They also aid in enforcing public policies.  When a person is found contravening a public policy, they are taken to court and it thus becomes the duty of the justice system to right wrongs on behalf of the public.  The enforcement of public policy is done in collaboration with the executive arm of government.

They also do affect public policy through the judgment delivered on issues brought before them for arbitration and judgment.  Working within the strict confines of existing laws, the executive can influence debate and by extension, change a public policy by either coming down hard or soft while delivering judgment.  Since they can borrow from precedents set in other countriesstates that have similar laws, developments in law can be brought in through rulings delivered which will in turn lead to debate as a result.

For an issue to qualify as a public issue it must be a human action that impacts another party as to warrant the intervention of the government.  It could concern health, justice, environment or even taxation.  Any issue as long as it is weighty is worth discussing and there are no issues that can not be addressed.  When this happens, then the process of finding a common ground that will be agreeable to all parties is put into action.  An issue is first picked by a member of a legislative body as a complaint by the public.  The other way for an issue to be considered for the policy making process is for the member to have a particular interest as concerns an issue and decide to seek that correction of an injustice heshe feels is being perpetuated.

Before an issue is introduced in the legislative body, the member sponsoring the issue will normally weigh the interest it can generate within fellow members.  This is done in order to find out what the reception will be like, whether the issue has any chance of being addressed in a manner agreeable to the member and if not what the obstacles that await the issue are.  The member will want to weigh the opinions in order to determine if it is the right time to bring it up.  No member wants to spend their energy on an issue that clearly is a non starter.

Once the member is sure of the level of support or none thereof, they then engage on popularizing the policy in order to win over as many supporters as possible.  This could be done in different ways.  In some instances it could be arm twisting when one is in a position of power or influence.

The member will also endeavor to hold public education and discussion with a view to ensuring the policy will not only be embraced by the public but that it actually will have goodwill ambassadors and lobbyists who will champion it through out the process from introduction in the legislature to its enactment.

When the legislature finally votes to adopt a policy and recommends it to the president to be signed into law, its work of formulation is finished.  It now falls on the executive and the judiciary to implement the policy.  These two arms of government have to work in tandem since each has its own unique characteristics and mandate which cannot individually achieve policy implementation.

Given the level and the scope of the public policy under consideration, most policies have their origins in the legislature.  This is the body that has constitutional mandate to make policies for the public.  Once the policy has been made it is then passed on to the executive and the judiciary for implementation and enforcement.  The legislature will have made the threadbare bureaucracies necessary to the implementation of the policy.

It is within these structures that the executive will have to work on in order to ensure implementation.  Where the bureaucracies do not exist then they would have to be created and empowered.  In implantation of public policy matter, decisions are made in a rule following manner.

Depending on how a policy will impact an individual, they will either have a strong interest or a passing interest.  When a policy stands to affect an individual in a negative way, the interest and ferocity to oppose it will be great and the same is true for the reverse.  Interest groups as the name suggests have only the well being of the people they represent at the top of their agenda.  Any policy that they perceive to have a positive or negative bearing on their common interest is either supported or opposed vehemently.

In order to have policies friendly to them and depending on the financial muscle they have, they will use a variety of strategies to influence favorable outcomes.  Interest groups are known to sponsor workshops for the legislature in the name of educating them on the intricacies of a policy under consideration.  They then have experts present who push for their point of view and the opposing voices paraded are intentionally chosen not to be loud enough.

In order to have support of particular legislators they deem pivotal to passing of a friendly policy, they are known to contribute to causes close to the legislators heart and expect quid pro quo when the policy comes up for voting.  In some cases there has been actual exchange of cash in lieu of support of a policy.

The media is the best avenue to disseminate views about a policy be they pro or against.  Depending on the value a media house will attach to a policy, they can generate debate by featuring the conflict from which the policy is being drafted and the possible outcomes that are being desired.  They also offer a forum for the sponsors of the policy to communicate with a large audience at once and sell their proposal.  When used effectively, the media can make differing members of a legislature take solid positions as a result of debate generated from their electors.

The media can out of its own assessment create debate which could result in the making of a public policy by highlighting on conflicts in the society.  The media often is supposed to act as the voice of the voiceless by practicing impartiality and strictly pursuing the policy of informing the public.  Unfortunately, in some instances depending on the inclinations of the management or owners of a particular media outlet, bias can be present.  This is done with the express view of swaying public view towards a particular view point.

Political parties especially in democratic countries have a very strong influence on public policy matters.  They can be used as means to rally support for a particular policy.  Since members of a political party already have a common ground, a member proposing a policy, once it has been supported by the party hierarchy is assured of party members for support.  The member only has to work on the opposing party member in order to have the policy gain nonpartisanship.  This is a sure way of increasing acceptance when a policy is seen as non partisan.

Political parties derive their mandate from their manifestos.  A party for whom environmental matters are central will trim its identity so that it will not be seen to be supporting a policy that seeks to degrade the environment.  They will however put all their energy on issues that further the environmental agenda.  Depending on the underlying party beliefs, ideology driven political parties can always be relied upon to raise and support public policy issues in line with their fundamental beliefs.

Conclusion
Depending on an individuals perceived impact of the policy on their life, so will the level of interest on a particular policy be determined.  If a policy affects persons with a particular interest, it is expected they will come together to support or fight the policy.

The media on its part depending on how it is applied by interested parties can play a pivotal role in shaping public perception regarding a particular policy.  Since all members are sponsored to the legislature by a political party, especially for those serving the very first term, it will hold a strong influence on them.  It will count on them to sponsor and support policies the party deems to beneficial to its long term strategy.

Neoliberalism has been a mammoth concept in the history of economics and has had a vast impact on the courses of the nations of the world as well as impacting on the lives of millions of people. It has furthermore remained a controversial concept the advantages and disadvantages of which are still fervently under debate. However, from rising to great prominence in some parts of the world, to getting diluted with other thoughts, Neoliberalism has been involved in shaping the history of the world to some extent. Understanding the economic and the social impact its implementation has had requires studying what the concept entails and the changes it brings.

The foundation of the thoughts that gave birth to the concept of Neoliberalism can be traced to the work of Adam Smith and David Hume. It basically involves the giving greater power over the economy to the private sector and thus transferring control of the resources of a country from the public sector to private enterprise. This is encouraged to achieve two primary aims, a greater degree of efficiency in the handling of these resources spurred by the profit motive, and thus betterment in the economic indicators of a nation which is taken to trickle down to the major sections of the population. The application of this concept requires certain policy changes that have been the core of the Neo-liberal model. First off, it requires disciplined application of the fiscal policy, the taxation and government spending by the state. Secondly, there is a focus on less intervention of the government in the market via subsidies and legislation and quotas, thereby allowing the forces of the market to operate freely to determine efficient allocation of scarce resources. This is complemented by tax reform, whereby the burden is made less for the higher earners by applying more moderate tax brackets so as to foster more investment and growth by owners of resources in a country. There is also a focus on floatation of the exchange rate of the countrys currency to make it more competitive as well as liberalization of trading activities by lifting of import restrictions and artificial barriers.

Policies are further stressed that encourage the inflow of foreign direct investment into the country by multinational corporations. This makes the market more competitive as well which is further aided by policies of deregulation of the market, to allow the invisible hand of the market to operate freely. To make the use of resources more efficient, state owned industries are encouraged to be privatized, lifting the traditional role that the state has played in health care and education. All this needs to be coupled with the provision of legal security for the right to private property and the easy access to finance required by entrepreneurs. Interest rates need to be market determined but remain positive. All these policies have the impact of transferring control of the resources from the public to the private sector and lessening the role of the government in the economy.

Neoliberalism brought about many economic as well as social changes with it. Many of these can be argued to be significantly good. The Chicago school was instrumental in the development of the policies linked with this model, soured by popular names such as Milton Freidman. One of the most significant impacts that it had was in the United Kingdom during the Thatcher days. Margaret Thatcher adopted the policies in an attempt to quell the tide of economic decline of the once fledgling island by utilizing the market forces and the efficiency that accompanied it. This was done by privatizing state owned enterprises at the time which was accompanied by a rise in the interest rates aimed at slowing down the increase in money supply and the accompanying inflation. Some of these actions were specifically aimed at reducing the power of the trade unions that had become powerful in the country in order to create greater flexibility and mobility of labor and to reduce resistance. This was done not only through legislation but also through the use of privatization. This was accompanied by a reduction in government spending on education and health care so that the market was given a greater role in the economy with government intervention to a minimum. These policies brought many advantages. Inflation which had been a problem before was brought to acceptable levels of around 8. Economic growth increased manifold and UK became one of the fastest growing economies of Europe. The cut down in regulation also helped London become the financial hub of the world and transformed the country altogether. Apart from these economic changes, the high growth and the stronger currency brought in many educated individuals from developing countries, making the society a strongly multicultural one and forming a blend in the metropolitan city of London. It also developed a broad consensus among the political parties in the country that the free market ideology espoused by Thatcher was correct and subsequent elections were carried out by parties building on the Neoliberal mandate of Thatcher.

The biggest success story of the free market ideology can be described as Iceland. It is a small icy island with a population of roughly 300,000 but it was able to transform itself in a few short years to one of the soundest economies of the world. This was achieved via Neoliberal policies. It decreased regulation in its markets to a great extent and reduced the barriers to international trade that existed. In addition it lessened the role of the government. This had the impact of making access to credit from international institutions very easy in Iceland. In addition, the banking sector in the country began to take full advantage of these policies, shortly becoming very strong and even buying considerable shareholding in the United Kingdom and Denmark. GDP per capita became one of the highest in the world and the lifestyle in the country improved a lot. The people in Iceland enjoyed many luxuries, with the lower jobs in the country increasingly being handled by Polish and Lithuanian immigrants who wanted to work to send the strong Krona currency back to their families in the homeland.

The most fervent protector of the Neoliberal policies has been the United States. It has invested increasingly in the freeing up of the market and lessening the amount of government intervention. Indeed, the Cold War was also fought partly over the Capitalist system which let the market dictate the allocation of resources rather than centrally planning them via government intervention. Now it is the worlds sole superpower, having outlasted the Soviet Union and boasts the strongest economy in the world. Particular focus on Neoliberalism can be said to have come during the Reagan years however. In this era, inflation fell and average incomes increased in the country as well as a rapid rise in commercial activity. GDP grew at a rate of 3.4 every year.

Thus broadly speaking, Neoliberalism had a strong economic impact on the developed world. It helped many get a control over inflation as well as spur rapid economic growth in the country through a substantial rise in commercial and trading activity. This had the effect of increasing incomes of the entrepreneurs while also raising the average incomes of the working class, thus increasing spending power of the populace. This increase in spending power and better economic condition helped raise the lifestyle in the countries, as they increasingly became some of the best places to live in the world according to ratings (Feo 2008). New Zealands reduction of agricultural subsidies and freeing up of its markets created a better economy and a rise in lifestyle which saw the country rise to number one in terms of life satisfaction by the Legatum institute. The Economist also raised its ranking substantially which was also the story with Icelands rapid development. The rise in prosperity also created a more educated population that was aware of social problems and responded to them through opting to vote for parties that took care of such problems. Thus the spread of welfare homes and human rights promotion activities increased. This proved so successful that previously centrally planned economies started to explore the route of Neoliberalism. One was Chile, which experimented with the policies promoted by the Chicago school, being under the control of a dictator (Schaefer 2003). China also followed the route under Deng Xiaopeng. Chile saw social change in the form of the dictatorship of Pinochet eventually ending, forming a democratic government in the country. Chinas policy saw it rise to prominence on the world stage as the fastest growing economy in the world and not overheating because of the rapid changes. This was accompanied by a massive rise in the living standards of the previously agrarian economy. Another important feature of Neoliberalism is its strong fostering of globalization as the economies of the world open up to free trade and free flow of resources. This leads to an increasingly globalized society as well where multiple ethnicities and sects work and live together. This has the impact of forming a blend and fostering increasing acceptance in society as well as promoting dialogue and finishing off age old prejudices that can be seen as the route cause of ethnic and racial hatred in the past.

These advantages of Neoliberalism aside, there have been massive disadvantages of following the policies of this model as well. The United Kingdom during the Thatcher years was able to enjoy one of the highest rates of economic growth in Europe which even exceeded those of France and Germany at the time. However, the social indicators of the country were worse off. France and Germany remained ahead in terms of lifestyle and other indicators such as education as well as healthcare which saw greater government intervention. This was because when the economic situation became uncertain, the automatic stabilizers in the economies of both countries came active to aid the population, via increases in government spending. The UK became a more globalized country in terms of absorbing a greater degree of ethnicities and races but it also led to problems for the indigenous people of the country, which saw an increase in support for right wing conservative parties in 2009 as more jobs and posts were captured by migrants to the country. In addition, the social problems of the country were highlighted when parties kept Thatchers broad policy moves intact but molded them to allow a greater degree of welfare provision for the people.

Icelands woes make a further case about the disadvantages of Neoliberalism. The island nation became exorbitantly rich almost overnight with a high degree of living standards and soaring salaries for its fledgling population. The financial sector became one of the strongest in the world. However, as one writer pointed out, much of this was as a result of the rapid inflow of hot money. The development of Iceland was effectively financed by substantial borrowing. A normal person could walk into an automobile showroom and purchase an SUV with immediate 100 credit being granted by a bank in Japan in less than ten minutes. Stock holding in the British stock market also aided the rapid rise in wealth. However, with the sudden financial crisis in 2008, the stock market tanked and the vast investments of the banks in Iceland fell in value. This was accompanied by one of the three biggest banks in the country being taken over by the government on account of rising debts and many others receiving government support. Loans were quickly taken out from the International Monetary Fund as well as British and Danish governments to keep the countrys economy afloat. The Krona fell to half its value, leading to an outflow of the Polish and Lithuanian labor that flowed in for blue collar jobs. The country effectively became bankrupt.

The United States is the worlds sole super power and the primary force backing the spread of Neoliberal policies around the world. However, it continues to face its own string of problems because of the application of the model. The health care and the education sector are marked by rampant inefficiency in the country which has led to a drop in living standards as well. Broad tax margins at the top means that the top earning people in the country have gotten exorbitantly rich while the bottom ten percent have had a smaller increase in wages, leading to a widening gap between the rich and the poor. This fosters class conflict in society where the bottom rung are looked down upon and often deprived by those in control of resources. The application of the Neoliberal policies did not come cheap either. The United States saw its debt rising so much that it became the largest debtor nation in the world eventually, having to finance further financial stimuli through borrowing from China and the oil rich Middle Eastern countries.

Another feature of Neoliberalism is that it promotes lower wages for the working class as the entrepreneurs look to cut costs for profit maximization. Social exclusion goes on the rise as a certain class benefits extremely from these policies while the rest are assumed to develop via a trickle down effect whose complete impact is still under debate. Inequality rises accompanied by a dip in the educational standards as well as the health coverage offered to the population. An interest contrast is drawn between the United States and Cuba in this regard, two opposite countries in terms of size and resources but with the smaller nation of Cuba enjoying better figures for health coverage and education for most of the population. Latin America is one region that suffered massively from the application of Neoliberal policies. Countries such as Argentina embraced the path to free market, taking on the route offered by the Chicago School but it was never able to attain economic breakthrough. The policies were in fact accompanied by a rapid rise in the debt level of the country to a highly unsustainable level. The servicing of this debt eventually spiraled out of control as the currency of the country had to be devalued leading to a period of hyperinflation, rising unemployment which created a massive informal sector in the country and the creation of a new poor class in the lower to middle class.

Singapore presents a unique case of the adverse social impact of Neoliberalism accompanied by great economic success. The Neoliberal policies brought about following the 1960s proved immensely beneficial for the small country for which free trade was important in developing a strong economy. The effect served to bolster the security of the country through its position in international trade and make the port of Singapore the busiest in the world in terms of cargo handling. However, this came at the price of human rights violations and repression of the population. The rate of incarceration increased under the firm hand of the ruling party and most of those in jail were either union members of students. The suppression of the other side was carried out rapidly to dust it under the carpet and highlight the economic success. This was unique because Neoliberalism was believed to increase human rights practices but in Singapore, it served a different purpose. The homeless and the destitute in the population were promptly picked up and moved to welfare homes, out of the sight of the shiny buildings and roads that were being constructed and also the conscience of the developing Singaporeans.

The globalization fostered by free trade under Neoliberalism brings its own ills. As the society becomes a blend of global culture, it finishes off the indigenous and the local. This was a particular problem in Latin America where identity became a major issue and the indigenous ways were increasingly looked down upon. Local cuisine, age old practices and other elements of society unique to a country get hit as well as the local industry bearing a large part of the damage of the inflow of multinational corporations that can take advantage of economies of scale and wipe out local businesses. Diversity as we know it seizes to exist eventually. There is also the case of deregulation of the labor market leading to unemployment as the private enterprises seek to make greater profits by cutting costs. This has a tendency to increase the degree of health relates problems and the frequency of industrial accidents in the country. Additional disadvantages accrue from the increasing externalities from private investment. The corporations and factories are established by taking into account the costs to the investors which does not account for environmental damages. The aggregation of such external costs has to borne by the population and the government. Exploitation because of class differences becomes rampant as the corporations and owners of private enterprise are able to gather disproportionate amount of power to even influence government actions which can then be used to exploit the lower class, fostering the class conflict that Marx predicted to a certain extent. As multinational corporations gain a greater role in the economy, the nations tend to lose a degree of sovereignty as their actions can be dictated to benefit the foreign investors. This loss in self determination also lessens the political power the people have and the amount of representation they can get at the centre which ultimately does not act to benefit the greater section of the population.

Thus it can be concluded that Neoliberalism has had a mixed impact on the world stage from an economic and a social perspective. At one end, it had fostered massive economic growth in many countries which has seen rising levels of GDP growth as well as additional control over inflation, rising living standards in some countries and an average increase in inflation as well as impacting society to make it more homogenous and doing aside with old prejudices. However, it is also true that these advantages have come primarily to the developed countries with Singapore and China being the significant names among the developing countries that benefited from application of a certain degree of Neoliberal policies. Otherwise, the policies resulted in massive inequality, raising difference in wages between the higher and lower classes which fostered exploitation and class conflict as well as a drop in welfare such as health care and education. The trends that are currently being followed by the countries around the world are of adopting Neoliberalism but molded to account for greater welfare policies and government control over healthcare and education as well as a certain degree of regulation. This tends to make use of the economically stimulating impact of Neoliberal polices but according greater protection to the local population and controlling the adverse impact of the policies.

Toward More Effective Peace Building
The topic of the first article is about looking at peace building in a different light using a different approach and focusing on what the author describes as Institution Before Liberalization (IBL) and the criticisms of both the alternatives to Wilsonianism and the IBL. The author first provides alternatives to Wilsonianism and what are the problems associated with them which render them ineffective. The first alternative is for the state to select a leader only after military and financial aid are stable. The problem with this is that self-sustaining peace is bleak because factions of the previously in conflict sides might grow because of the restriction that they are experiencing. The solution for this is to create mechanisms that can solve societal demands of all the parties involved while being fair to all of them. The second alternative is to separate the conflicting tribes altogether, like what happened in some conflicting states recently. The problem with this is that international intervention would almost surely use deadly force on groups who are unwilling to move, and this method is only effective when warring states are already divided. The setbacks of this two methods make them ineffective and therefore the birth of the Institution Before Liberation (IBL) concept. It is simple, really it has the same goal of attaining peace in war-countries, but it has been especially modified to minimize the negative effects of a  quick and dirty  method.

The authors arguments are fairly consistent and does not seem to contradict his own views. The article is also easy to understand even for someone who is not particularly aware of the conflicts mentioned, and he uses a lot of facts to strengthen his point. Based on the explanation provided by the author, it appears that he is right with the method he chose because of the problems associated with the alternatives. The authors approach is best compared to the alternatives he mentioned because it offers the best possible solution without the setbacks of the two alternatives. The author has also successfully defended criticisms in IBL by answering the criticisms. Through his arguments, the author was able to make important points, that why should a war-torn country be rushed into independence when the consequence of it would lead to violence again This is an important question to ask because it makes IBL method more appealing. I liked this text better than the next article because it is easier to understand and I am also able to follow what the author is saying a lot easier than the next article.

On Democratization and Peace Building
The topic is the relationship between democratization and peace building. The author points out that democratization and peace building have changed dramatically over the years and that the  Democratic Reconstruction Model  is no longer an effective way in dealing with war-torn states.

Despite requiring a slightly broader knowledge on vocabulary and world affairs, I am able to tell that the authors arguments are consistent and do not have any contradiction. I am certain that the text makes sense it is just that I have read a previous text that is a lot easier to comprehend. The word literature appears a lot which makes the piece look like a very academic text, hence the difficulty. I think the author has used the right kind of approach since he admits that the democratic reconstruction model in peace building has some flaws despite improving over the years. Important questions asked by the author include the following are the difficulties in the model a sign of failure Are insufficient funding and poor choices made to blame for peace building missions to fail .

Gun Show Loophole is a term that refers to laws that permits private persons not indulge in the business of dealing with firearms to put on the market guns at gun shows without a background checks on purchasers or keeping records of sale. The United States federal law requires individuals engaged in interstate firearm commerce to have a Federal Firearm License and conduct background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System controlled by the FBI prior to transferring guns. However, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals who are not engaged in the business of firearms or who make occasional sales in their state of residence are under no requirement to perform background checks on purchasers or keep records of sale.

Gun Show Loophole
This is a momentary exhibition where ammunition, guns, firearm accessories, Jerky, literature, Knives and other miscellaneous collectibles are put on display, sold, traded, bought and discussed. Gun shows frequently include exhibitions connected to hunting and the preservation and preparation of wild game for consumption. They could be used by gun manufacturers to display new firearm models or by gun enthusiasts to demonstrate unusual or antique guns. Gun shows provide a recurring meeting place or common place for gun culture members.

The shows are normally held in public building including malls, hotels, stadiums, armories etc and are open to the community with a nominal fee charged for entry. They are always a two day event held on weekends by the promoters who rent the space and allow dealers to lease tables to exhibit their wares and advertise the services that they provide. Under the GCA (Gun Control Act) of 1968, dealers of firearms with a FFL (Federal Firearms License) were banned from doing business at gun shows. That changed with the performance of the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) of 1986, which permitted Federal Firearms License to take firearms at gun shows so long as they follow the provisions of the Gun Control Act and other pertinent federal rules and regulations.

Pros and Cons of gun show loophole
Those in quest of closing the Gun Show Loophole disagree that it provides convicted criminals and other prohibited purchasers like for example substance abusers, domestic abusers, those who have been adjudicated as mental defectives and so on with opportunities to avoid background checks as they can buy firearms without any difficulty from private sellers with no oversight or accountability.  A national poll performed by Mayors against Illegal Guns shows that 87 of Americans and 83 of gun owners would like the loophole to be closed. However, gun show loophole has been arguable with gun rights advocates.

They argue that there is no loophole, only a long standing tradition of free business between private firms that heretofore has not been prohibited in the context of secondary, intrastate sales of firearm. In addition, they argue that the word Gun Show Loophole is misunderstood as sellers of private firearm are not permitted to conduct background checks regardless of location, whether they are at a flea market, a gun show, their home, or anywhere else. They also dispute federal jurisdiction in intrastate business between private firms which they disagree exceeds the federal power implemented by the Commerce Clause.  Currently, 17 states control the sales of private firearm at gun shows by them selves. Seven states insist on background checks on all sales of gun at the gun shows, that is California, New York, Rhode Island, Oregon, Connecticut, Illinois and Colorado. Four states Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, and Pennsylvania insist on background checks on the entire hand gun but not long gun purchasers at the gun shows. As noted by Duggan, Hjalmarsson, and Jacob (2008) five states insist on individuals to get a permit to purchase hand guns that involves a background check, these are North Carolina, Massachusetts, Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska. Some counties in Florida insist on background checks on the entire private sales of hand guns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not limit private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

The top firearm banning priority of the aggressive citizen disarmament lobby will be called assault weapons with their second favorite target 50 caliber rifles.  Gun dealers who are licensed are required by federal law to go over all the hoops background checks, sales records and so on at gun shows that they do in their enterprises. According to the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, the problem is the private sellers who can put up for sale guns from their individual collections devoid of all the red tape. According to the CSGV (coalition to stop gun violence), these unlicensed sellers make up 25 to 50 of the retailers at gun shows. This suitably ignores the fact that many of the retailers at gun shows do not sell guns but war memorabilia, t-shirts, books, etc.

Worse yet, ending private sales at gun shows is not going to satisfy these people. After all, a private sale at the gun show is not different in principle from a private sale elsewhere. In fact, The Brady Campaign, no longer bothers to conceal the fact that the goal is to prohibit on the entire private gun sales as they continuously shoot out. They undoubtedly argue that they are not trying to outlaw private sales but they just want to insist on federal background checks. Of course, the problem with that logic is that there is nothing private about a sale that can only continue with government monitoring and approval in order to ensure make that terrorist plots are not being hatched.

Effects
Between 2003 and 2006, more than 500 guns legally bought at the gun shows from licensed dealers in the city of Richmond, Virginia, were later found in connection with illegal activity. The figure above do not take into account the firearms that could have been sold at Richmond area gun shows by sellers who are unlicensed  as these kind of transactions are more complex to follow up. It is notable that the in connection with illegal activity group includes stolen guns later retrieved from burglaries but the report does not identify how many guns in the 500 gun figure cited were not used in the commission of an offense but that were rather the fruits of illegal activity.

Gun shows is identified as a source used by criminals and other local gang members to obtain guns.  A lot of the recovered guns in high crime regions of the city had been bought at a local gun shows. A lot of gun shows attracted large numbers of gang members who often purchase in large quantities of assault weapons and smuggled them. Every year hundreds and thousands of guns are sold with no a background checks by vendors who argue that they are simply selling from their individual gun collection so they do not see the need of keeping records of their transactions or have federal gun vendors license.

A lot of of these sales take place at gun shows and from classified sellers. This provides an outstanding opportunity for criminals to obtain firearms. The Columbine shooters acquired their weapons from gun show by buying them anonymously. The opposition to gun control explains that if more gun control policy were implemented people wishing to protect them selves would be unable to do so. This is untrue, if those people wish to only protect them selves would like to own a firearm after a simple background check and five day waiting period they could be able to own one. Instead of relying only on guns for defense perhaps more non lethal weapons could be used.

Conclusion
I stand by the evaluation but I envisage that even before they make an intensive effort to ban any guns, they will go after gun sales majorly, private sales at gun shows and the loophole such sales allegedly represent. This goes way beyond the fact that closing the gun show loophole is stated as a priority of the urban policy and that closing of the loophole is a long period priority of the new attorney general who has affirmed that in his view, the Supreme Courts Heller choice poses no impediment to such a measure. Gun show loophole has become so invasive that in the last presidential election has long taken an extensively publicized standpoint in favor of prohibition private sales at the gun shows.

To be the person responsible for the welfare of the whole nation is not a laughing matter. To be president or to be anyone who is holding the highest position in the land requires facing different issues every single day in trying to figure out how to make the country the best place to live in for its citizens. Out of all the national security policies in the country, global warming seems to be the most relevant issue today that requires the highest attention from the president.

Global Warming as a National Security Threat
What does global warming bring and why is it considered the biggest threat to national security today Global warming why, in a span of ten years, our nation will have to face the effects of pandemics and drought. Global warming will cause mass migration. It will bring violent storms to the country.

Because of these effects of global warming, national security is threatened in such a way that all crises caused by climate-related changes can knock off the balance of regions. Terrorists will find it easy to create movements. It is a threat to national security because the effects have the power to collapse the entire government of the United States.

Intelligence studies have arrived at a conclusion that in the decades to come, other countries in the world will experience flooding, water shortages and food shortages. Southeast Asia, the Philippines and Vietnam to be exact, was recently devastated by typhoon Ketsana.

Different countries, specifically the United States, pledged financial assistance to these nations. In the years to come, catastrophic shortages and flooding will become worse, and the United States will again be demanded for response, which can be in the form of military assistance, funding, or any kind of humanitarian relief.

According to John Broder of the New York Times, intelligence planners, including the military, know that climate-related changes are indeed something to be worried about. The president has in fact made global warming the center of the administrations policies (Broder, 2009).

The military is threatened by global warming  the military, being the defenders of national security. Recent mechanisms that were put up by the military were all susceptible to storm and sea surges. In 1992, Homestead Air Force Base, which is located in Florida, was devastated by a hurricane (Broder, 2009).

Six years ago, another hurricane destroyed Naval Air Station Pensacola. Two more major stations in the United States, which are located at San Diego and Virginia, are now the center of the militarys attention. All planners are creating ways to protect these stations from the adverse effects of global warming (Broder, 2009).

The military is also confronted by the threat arctic melting brings. Ice caps are melting. If it melts faster than the military and the scientists prediction, then it will pose a great danger to the shipping channel. The opening of this channel is what the military is trying to protect because beneath it are various underwater resources.

Conclusion
As long as global warming is affecting the different parts of the country and of the world, there will be demand for humanitarian responses. This will affect military structures and transportation since the demands for assistance will force the government to tax these military resources. If this happens, the strategies and readiness of the military will be significantly affected, including all its operations. The effects of global warming are here, and various nations are exhausting all they can to help those who need assistance the most. Global warming should indeed be the governments focus as it involves not only the welfare of the flora and fauna, but also human lives.

It is a fact each state is characterized by uniqueness in politics, economic and socio-cultural way of life. The gravity of the situation is that it is through these that the destiny of the citizen is shaped to a vast extent. Given that politics is very pervasive, totally permeating all the spheres of life, it is very dynamic since it is also characterized by the need to seize and consolidate power. It is against this backdrop that the data presented above about Israel 2009 and Turkey 2002 parliamentary elections vary to a great extent, at least statistically. Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that behind the statistical differences between 2009 and Turkey 2002 parliamentary elections, there are underpinnings of the political systems being used by the two countries. The data is therefore interpreted using this reality.

The Striking Features in the Comparison
It is important to note that according to the statistics presented, there is a great disparity between the numbers of votes and the between the political parties in Turkey, as opposed to Israel. It is a fact that for instance, the Justice and Development Party can be said without any controversy to have bagged the most votes (10,762,131). By this virtue, the Justice and Development Party garnered the majority of seats in parliament, and thus, becoming the most dominant party in parliament. Following the Justice and Development Party, is the Republican Peoples Party which is seen to have bagged 6,090,883 votes. As a corollary to this, the Republican Peoples Party is seen to have won for itself, 178 seats in parliament.

In respect to the above, Turkey is seen to play a bicameral or two party parliamentary system, but in a de facto sense not in regard to the Turkey constitution. In this regard, there may be two dominant parties in terms of the seats each command in parliament- Justice and Development Party and Republican Peoples Party, respectively. There may however be small parties extant in Turkish political spectrum. Examples to these are True path party the Nationalist Movement Party, the Youth Party Democratic Party the Democratic Peoples Party and the Motherland Party. Usually, these small parties may enter alliances with one of the dominant parties, or root for a position taken by one of the dominant parties. This is typical of Australian politics.

On the other hand, the scenario is different when Israel is factored. The issue of the dominant party is neither here nor there. On the contrary, the space range with which the political parties out-garnered one another in the number of votes and seats is very closely spaced not exceeding 2 seats. This is because Israeli parliament, the Knesset is not a bicameral one as Turkeys, but a unicameral one. It is against this backdrop that even the smaller parties such as Yisrael Beiteinu, Labor Party, Shas, United Torah, National Union, New Movement, The Jewish Home and the Balad have seats in the Knesset. On the other hand, the Israeli nature of politics is more permissive than that of Turkeys. Israeli unicameral parliamentary system, and as such, allows for the incursion of many political parties.

Explaining the Features and the Disparity
From the above standpoint, it is easy to explain the disparity between the Israel 2009 and Turkey 2002 parliamentary elections. In the first place, there are socio-political underpinnings which dictate the realization of the above results. For instance, it is a fact that Turkey is a larger country, both geographically and demographically. Whereas Turkey enjoys a total population of about 75 million, Israel has that of 7.5 million- almost a half of Turkeys population. Again, as Israel boasts of a total area of 22,072 square kilometers, Turkey has a total area of 783,562 square kilometers.

It would therefore be logical that the parties in Turkey would realize greater number of votes, compared to Israeli political parties. This is also given the fact that Turkey had fewer political parties about seven, going by the statistical provision, compared to the state of Israel which is depicted as having more parties 14 according to the data presented. It is obvious that political parties in Israel are twice as much as those in Turkey.  It would therefore be only logical if the political parties in Israel on average, garnered vote about ten times less than those in Turkey.

As suffrologists would have it, would be statistically anachronistic for one of the political parties in Israel to attain votes which would near those of the Turkish political parties by a half or more. For instance, given that the total demography of Turkey is about ten times higher than that of Israel, it is only fit that the Justice and Development Party as Turkeys top notch political party, have votes about ten times higher than that of Kadima, as Israels leading political party. The same trend should remain consistent for the moderate political parties and the little political parties. It is a fact that suffrologists take any deviation from the demographic trends as explained above as clear indicators of rigging and other forms of electoral irregularities.

The size of the district or the district magnitude refers to the number of candidates to be elected from that district. Depending on this number of seats, they can either be referred to as single-member or multimember districts. A single member district has a single seat while the multimember districts have several seats with the minimum number being two a two-member district. Electoral process formulas plurality and majority formulas can be applied to both this type of districts while the proportional representation (PR) and the single non-transferable vote (SNTV) are applied to only multimember districts ranging from two-member districts to the whole nation where all the members of parliament are elected from. The district size has a strong effect on proportionality and the number of parties in two respects. Studies carried put by Horwill (1925) and, Taagepera and Shugarts (1989) have strongly supported this.

First of all, it affects both plurality and PR systems but in a contradicting way. While increasing the size of the district will increase disproportionality by favoring the larger parties with the application of plurality and majority systems, it is vice versa with the PR systems as it leads to greater proportionally by favoring the smaller parties. A good example to illustrate this with regard to plurality is a contest between party A and B in an area where A enjoys a greater popularity than B. A is likely to take all the seats if the area is a three-member district which is unlikely to be the case if the area is divided into three single-member districts B may be able to capture one. In most plurality cases, multimember districts are smaller than single-member districts with rare cases being seen in countries like Mauritius. It has twenty three-member districts and one two-member districts producing a total of sixty-two legislators. It should be noted that multimember districts have been on the decline due the fact that it increases disproportionality. However, it should be noted that in Mauritius that the three-member districts have improved another kind of proportionality by encouraging parties and party alliances to nominate ethnically and religiously balanced states which has resulted in a better representation of the minority groups.

Another point to note is that the size of the district varies greatly in the PR systems unlike in plurality and majority systems making it impact greater on the proportionality being achieved. A party representing a 10 percent minority is likely to be successful in a ten-member district which may not be the case in a five-member district. A nationwide district therefore is optimal for a proportional translation of votes into seats with Israel and Netherlands being the two examples with such PR systems.

Two levels of districts are usually used by many of the list PR countries so as to enjoy the advantages of a closer voter-representative contact in small districts and the higher proportionality of large nationwide districts. Larger districts improve proportionality in the smaller districts as in the case of mixed member proportional (MMP) systems but they are less pronounced in the smaller multimember list PR districts than in the MMP single-member districts. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are examples of countries applying the two-tiered list PR systems with a nationwide district.