Write essays of at least one page each on four of the following questions.
1. California’s People, Economy and Politics. What do you find most interesting about the history of California politics, as described in Chapter 1 of the small book? Tell me what you learned in that chapter that might help us understand our state today.
2. California’s Democracy. How does democracy work in our state? Consider key points you pick up from Chapters 2, 3 or 4 in the small book. Comment on various factors such as political parties, direct democracy, campaigning, and the role of interest groups. Do you think we have an effective political system, or do you think it needs some reform?
3. The Legislature. What do the authors mean by “the perils of policymaking”? Why do you think our legislature has trouble tackling major issues? What would you propose to make our legislature more effective?
4. The Executive Branch. Why does the Governor have such an important job? Can you tell why recent governors found the job extremely difficult? Why do we have so many statewide elected offices? Do we need them all? (Note: These offices are up for election in 2018!)
5. The State Courts. What key aspects of the legal system in California do you understand better from reading Chapter 6 in the small book? Do you see the courts as separate from politics, or are they inevitably connected? What challenges do you see the courts facing in the near future?
6. The State Budget. Why does our state often have budget difficulties? Do you think our tax system could be part of the problem? Based on your reading, what would you propose we do to achieve a more stable budget that meets our needs?
7. Local Government. What do the authors mean by “Politics at the Grassroots”? How do local governments get funding to do the projects they are supposed to do? From your reading, do you think the local governments have too much power, not enough, or is it a good balance?
8. State-Federal. Why is the relationship between our state and the federal governments so complicated? Discuss key policy issues the authors bring up in regard to state-federal relations.
IS THE VIEW OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN MERELY AS VICTIMS OF WAR TOO SIMPLISTIC? Global on-screen characters confronted various Humanitarian emergencies all through the 1990s, prompting a New War proposition, made especially unmistakable by Mary Kaldor. While wars have verifiably been worried about savagery against the most powerless, just as of late have examines concentrated on enormous non military personnel setbacks, generally ladies and kids (Kaldor 2013: 133). In standard reasoning, war remains a solely male issue where men are ‘normally’ the individuals who execute viciousness; in the mean time, ladies and youngsters are seen just as casualties. Exact information, in any case, announced that men as potential warriors are destined to be focused in equipped clash, including sexual animosity (Carpenter 2006: 88). Wars make a wide range of casualties and culprits, crossing sexual orientation and parts. In this manner, is the part of ladies and youngsters only as casualties excessively oversimplified? Need This paper inspects how regular sexual orientation based presumptions and vague casualty related terms drove eyewitnesses to think about exploitation as characteristic and sex particular. As Cynthia Enloe (2004: 10) expressed, ‘normally’ is a risky thought that portrays ladies as nurturing versus men as life-taking (Coulter, Persson and Utas 2008: 7). Notwithstanding, men, ladies and kids’ parts are significantly more various and complex. Examination of the Syrian emergency shows this contention and gives confirm that men, ladies and kids might be casualties, culprits, or even both. ‘Ladies and Children First’. The need to have a ‘casualty’. Considering furnished clash and human security, casualties are frequently at the core of pioneers’ basic leadership and common society’s approaches. The scan for sufficient casualties’ and helpful projects raised the verbal confrontation about which side or groups ought to be recognized as casualties and uncovered the numerous appearances of victimhood (Huyse 2003: 54). Some portion of the situation originates from the political-one-sided undertones and the lawful definition(s) of the term casualty. To examine the previous contention, we utilize the definition gave by the 1985 UN Declaration, which characterized a casualty as: a man who, separately or by and large, have endured hurt, including physical or mental damage, passionate enduring, monetary misfortune or significant impedance of their basic rights, through acts or oversights that are infringing upon criminal laws agent inside Member States (UN 1985). Ladies and sex based viciousness. Sex based viciousness, particularly wartime assault, is as old as war itself. For quite a while ever, the ‘mediocre’ position of ladies or certain ethnic or racial minorities was considered as normal, after Browmiller’s theory that ‘War furnishes men with the ideal mental background to offer vent to their hatred for ladies’ and ended up inborn to regional progress (Brownmiller 1975, 32). Amid the freedom of Europe in 1945, the Russian Army assaulted more than two million German ladies (Beevor 2007). Be that as it may, ladies needed to hold up fifty years with the outrages of Bosnian, Sierra Leone and Rwandan reports on assault camps to at last get the ear of the International people group. The mediatization of furnished gatherings utilizing the foe’s ladies to accomplish ethnic purifying, annihilation and occupation objectives upon the adversary brought issues to light about the utilization of assault as a weapon (The Economist 2001, Farwell 2004). Weights by women’s activist entryways and scholastics prompted an endeavor by the UN to strengthen the assurance of ladies and young ladies from sexual orientation based brutality, perceiving this ‘unfortunate part of the war’ as an unspeakable atrocity (Farwell 2004: 389, Erturk 2008: 1, DEDAW 1993). In any case, sexual viciousness isn’t the main type of contention related exploitation of ladies. The over-grouping of ladies as ‘shrubbery spouses’, camp supporters, and sex slaves without a doubt raised the world’s mindfulness on sex based viciousness yet additionally occupied approach creators to address and set up productive arrangements for all the scope of casualties (Coulter, Persson and Utas 2008: 8). For instance, worries about the wellbeing needs of ladies in struggle zones – particularly pregnant moms and their youngsters are yearly communicated. In 2009 the Red Cross announced the most noteworthy rates of maternal passings occur in war-torn nations (Puechguirbal 2009). Other than physical spin-offs, ladies experience the ill effects of long haul and roundabout mental, social, and temperate related-types of viciousness. For instance, ladies harmed by sexual viciousness persevere through physical sufferings yet in addition mental weights, for example, disgrace when they are back in their groups or financial hardships and assents. Those issues are especially hostile in situations where ladies are socially needy and subjected to their spouses. (Puechguirbal 2009, Erturk 2008, Tickner 1997: 628). Youngsters as casualties A similar thinking happens with youngsters. UNICEF as of late asserted the quantity of youngsters influenced by common wars has dramatically increased over the previous years, surpassing in excess of 5.5 million (UNICEF 2014: 3). In any case, the numbers don’t mirror the type of viciousness and abuse nor do they determine a period refinement. Kids are primarily portrayed as ‘immediate casualties’ – experiencing the immediate impacts of brutality. By the by, more consideration ought to be given to the numerous other undetectable casualties, for example, those youngsters who lost at least one relatives and experience the ill effects of the eventual outcomes of the viciousness they saw (Huyse 2003: 57, Worldvision 2014). Typically exposed and defenseless, kids are slaughtered, physically mishandled, seized, enlisted as troopers, and additionally dislodged. In Syria, in excess of 1.2 million kids have fled their homes, the vast majority of them are under 12 (UNICEF 2014: 18). In outcast camps, youngsters are especially presented to lack of healthy sustenance and unsanitary conditions, prompting a wide range of illness. Isolated from their family, as well as without help from guardians who could scarcely bear to bolster and secure them, youngsters endure financial hardship and normally have no entrance to fundamental necessities. They are kept from going to schools and are either selected as tyke work as well as constrained into sexual subjugation, – or on account of young ladies, offered to more seasoned men – to supplement their family’s small pay (Shivakumaran 2014). Notwithstanding physical misuse, youngsters experience the ill effects of long haul mental injuries from their encounters. In Syrian outcast camps, analysts saw bizarre level of trouble and obvious signs social and physical brokenness among uprooted kids (Atlas 2014, Winter 2014). Segregated and socially dismissed, youngsters who have been damaged amid the contention create spin-offs that can prompt new types of viciousness – tyke fighters, road groups, adolescent wrongdoing or feud—(Boyden 2006: 4). In war-torn social orders, the perceptions can by and large be stretched out to second-age casualties; from kids who experienced abnormal amounts of pressure the grown-ups around them and kids conceived in camps, to the grandkids who convey recollections from senior ages (Huyse 2004: 54, 57). Casualties of Man’s war For quite a while, there was a conviction that men battle wars to ensure powerless individuals, shield their family’s riches, and the premiums of the country. This cliché part of the ‘dynamic male defender’ normally characterized ladies and youngsters as ‘inactive ensured’ performers. By the by, this regular comprehension about ladies and youngsters’ exploitation to a great extent occupied the worldwide level headed discussion from other under-recognized substances (Tickner 1997: 627, Enloe 2012: 7, Rygiel 2006: 150) To start with, furnished gatherings are not continually ensuring the frail; second, the suspicion that exploitation is sex particular disregards the nearness of female contenders among armed forces (Goldstein 2001: 59). At last, remembering the destiny of youngsters as casualties, late explores show observational proof about kids’ commitment to equipped savagery, including kid soldiering. From casualties to dynamic members Savagery conferred by kids or ladies has an essential representative power on individuals’ brains, since it challenges conventional social developments that ladies and kids are the most helpless (Hunt and Rygiel 2006: 2). Kids as weapons Youngster fighters have been being used for quite a while: normal armed forces previously the Geneva assentions made utilization of kids. Because of changing societal qualities and more prominent consciousness of the issue, youngster soldiering progressively increased political notability throughout the most recent many years of common wars heightening. Pictures of several thousands little young men with an AK-47 – considered as a ‘shoddy’ and ‘expendable products’ by African War-masters (Rosen 2005)– made alarming harms around the world (Erwin 2002, Hoge 2014). Be that as it may, tyke fighters are by and large depicted as immediate or aberrant casualties, constrained and forced by grown-ups to confer fierce barbarities. Various declarations by previous kid officers demonstrate the difficulty for those kids who executed to shield themselves, either from their captor or a contradicting outfitted group (BBC 2005). The current video discharged by the Islamic State (IS) demonstrates the procedure of teaching and militarization: youngsters convey weapons as large as them, and are prepared in radical belief system (Vinograd, Balkiz and Omar 2014). A considerable lot of those kids are around 12-13 and don’t really have a decision, however some of them are now grown-ups. This likewise prompts the level headed discussion around the limit of youth to practice a measure of individual independence in their choices and activities (Maclure and Denov 2006: 120). Since 2002, ‘kid fighters’ definition depends the UN straight 18 standard and bandits every single significant type of kids contribution in dangers under that age (OPAC 2007). Be that as it may, this strict definition has a tendency to darken the heaviness of experience, social-setting and condition I>