It is the second time I've seen Estonia mentioned this morning. Sounds like they are trying some really interesting things in government. Curious to see how it all goes.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/e-estonia-what-is-all-the-fuss-about/

Usability guidelines This site seems a bit dated in its appearance but still provides the user the opportunity to review usability standards in general, together with a rating of the weight of evidence that supports each assertion. It would take some time to go through all the information available on this site. It is also usable enough that a designer can check up on guidelines while in the middle of designing a specific project. Rating 3/5

what is plain language This government site describes the rationale for plain language and more importantly provides some tools for using it. Plain language can be useful when writing text for e-learning products, among other things; this is a useful site to review. There is a list of resources as well. rating 4/5

absolutely, a very good analogy!

Is a federal government, and a federal government alone, enough to do such a thing? I mean, look at what happened to the Library of Alexandria. I still get pissed off thinking about that. And is it even a good idea in the first place to let them have that responsibility? I can't help but think of all of the instances in which governments have been directly responsible for mass destructions of literature. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to historical book burning events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents, and a large majority of these noteworthy burnings were done at the will of the government. What would happen if we were to give them too much agency in this matter? Is it a good idea for governments to have the final say in the well-being of our literature? How can we trust them to decide what is and isn't worth protecting?

I tried to look up info for WA State at census.gov and found the site unavailable due to the shut down and no funding. It will be very difficult if the politics of this country eliminates our access to accurate data.

https://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/interactive/cedr/cdr.html?s_appName=saipe&map_yearSelector=2013&map_geoSelector=aa_c&s_state=53&s_measures=aa_snc&menu=map_proxy

There are some commonly reported misconceptions about revolutions and coups, particularly with respect to military take overs of television and newspapers, that the average reader may wish to familiarize themselves with as they enter this area. One of the best resources I've seen for this is a recent recap by On The Media.

Hidden here, though I highly suspect she'll cover it later, there is a huge value to the building and maintenance of institutions with respect to government and building into the future.

Federalism has the capability of being both bad and good. It just depends who you ask. On one side the advantages of fedaralism is it creates more effectiveness and makes the government stable. On the other hand federalism is risky it gets expensive, lead to a complex tax system and is slow in responses to crisis.

I believe that this solution to the paragraph directly above it, directly contradicts itself. If the Government bans the use of a drug not because it can make someone happier/better, but because it can have potentially negative or harmful side affects, then this solution is impossible. If the government deems some as potentially harmful then in more cases than not it most probably is. In this way no government could rationally come to this solution rather than the one above it. It would be obscure for a Government to allow a person who is educated about the dangers of a product to choose to use it. In the Government's and the medical professional's eyes this person would not be in their 'right mind'.. How then, could they ever allow someone who they do not deem 'in their right mind' to use a potentially hazardous drug?

Is it fair to at least partially blame Popper for the advent of neoliberalism? If not, is it fair to question the use of the term "open" to describe the ideal society?

Linked from open data article

Writers spend an awful lot of time focused too carefully on the free market economy, but don't acknowledge a lot of the major benefits of the non-free market parts which are undertaken and executed often by governments and regulatory environments. (Hacker & Pierson, 2016)

la PA consapevole dell'incapacità di svolgere appieno e nel modo piu professionale possibile il suo compito si trincera dietro la burocrazia.... la soluzione è nell'e-governement nel rendere trasparente il processo di disbrigo delle pratiche... una sorta di tracciamento commentato e intelligente della pratica....

Here's a case where we ought to consider creating our bills and laws via version control, so we can see exactly who, what, and when things changed along the way. It might mean much less gets done, but there'd be a lot more transparency and accountability.

I know the book American Amnesia talks about the value built up by a strong government working in conjunction with a capitalist machine over the past century or so. I wonder if the later half of the book gets into how to shift things back in this manner?

Historians have given a lot of attention to the relationship between the federal and state governments. The states must comply with laws passed by the US Congress as long as the laws do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

This is interesting; if these regulations are hurting government-owned broadband providers, what motivations might their "champions" have in advocating Title II implementation?

Nationalism is a deathly effective tool for motivating and controlling an empire's officials. All sense of mercy and consideration for foreigners are replaced with frustration and paranoia due to the possibility of the aliens being enemies of the nation. Though the narrator clearly displays his reluctance of interrogating the prisoners, he knows that his duty as a government magistrate rises above all else and it is very intriguing to see his battle between his idealism and his obedient sense of duty. The struggle of many government workers has always been the decision between one's own sense of righteousness or the word of their superiors and what they decide depends on how far they've seen their peers push others in the name of the flag.

This University was founded by one of the "fathers", at a time when the revolution was not the country's history, but part of one's personal past. The ideals of the founding fathers were ingrained in the people at this time, so it makes perfect sense that the commissioners would want to align themselves with their ideas of liberty and equality. However the word choice is kind of strange. The way it's worded makes it seem as if the commissioners had not purposefully aligned themselves with the founders, their university would not survive. This university seems to have been founded with great consideration to the government- not how one may want it to be. If a university and government are tied together, how can things change and progress? -Tessa

Recommendation 1

Except mind altering drugs often affect more than the individual themselves. Autonomy out to give way, in instances like these, to the greater public good/safety. Our choices always affect more than just ourselves.

Interesante ver cómo CfA ha permitido el tránsito del sector ONG al público (ver párrafo anterior).

Provides education, administrative support, and compliance information.

Alberta government regulatory body.

What happens if Trump tries to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller?

"To superscribe (a letter, etc.) with a signature, so as to ensure its being sent without charge" (OED). According to The History of the British Post Office, franking was a privilege that allowed sending letters without being charged. However, over time, this privilege was highly abused and ultimately by 1840 this privilege was finally abolished. Franking free letters for others not in Parliament and for non Parliament purposes was so serious a Franking Department was created to inspect such letter (Hemmeon, The History of the British Post Office, p. 57).

James Burgh's Political Disquisitions was an early case for freedom of speech and universal suffrage.

The English constitution is not one written document, but rather a series of laws, practices and agreements. Paine is most likely referring to the 1689 Bill of Rights, which established the supremacy of Parliament over the monarch during the Glorious Revolution, which deposed King James II and put in his place his daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. For more on the British constitution, check out this article from the British Library. The Bill of Rights being presented to William and Mary

In 1689, at the time of the Glorious Revolution, most other monarchs, particularly Louis XIV in France, ruled as absolute monarchs. Louis XIV, 1701

Masaniello (an abbreviation of Tomasso Aniello) led a revolt against Spain in 1647. Born and raised in Naples, Masaniello was a fisherman and fishmonger. In the 1640s, Spain, which ruled Naples, imposed a series of heavy taxes in order to help fund its wars elsewhere. The Neapolitans revolted on July 7, 1647, and Masaniello, a well-known man, attempted to discipline the mob. Eventually, he became the rebel leader, negotiated terms with the Spanish, and became "captain-general of the Neapolitan people." However, he began to act erratically, and by July 17, 1647, he had been assassinated.

"Qualified voters" meant almost exclusively white men. As the former colonies began the process of writing state constitutions, debates over who should be included as a "qualified voter" often divided conventions. Vermont and Pennsylvania had two of the most liberal constitutions. Vermont permitted all men, regardless of color, to vote, while Pennsylvania permitted all white men to vote regardless of income. Other states, like Maryland, had much more restrictive qualifications for voting and required that free white men also hold property.

Henry Pelham was a British politician, who served as Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1743 until his death in 1754.

Sir William Meredith was a British politician, a member of the King's Privy Council.

Also known as the Wars of the Roses. The House of York was represented by a white rose, and the House of Lancaster by a red rose.

This would later happen to George III, who suffered from mental illness later in his life. In 1810, a regency was established, and his son George, Prince of Wales (later George IV), ruled in his stead. George III in later life, engraving by Henry Meyer.

A minor can inherit the throne if they are the legitimate successor of the monarch. The English throne had been held by several minors, including Richard II, Edward V, Edward VI, and Lady Jane Grey. Having a minor on the throne meant the country was governed by a regent, and power struggles inevitably ensued. Richard II, who inherited the throne in 1377 at the age of 10.

William the Conquerer became king of England in 1066 and ruled until his death in 1087. He was the bastard son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, and defeated Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 to take the throne of England. William the Conqueror, as depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry

Popish is a (slightly derogatory) term for Catholics. Most Protestants believed that Catholicism was overly ritualistic to the point of idolatry and that the Pope was no better than a despot. To be under "Popish" rule was the worst fear of many Englishmen.

The Dutch Republic was formed with the signing of the Union of Utrecht in 1579, when several provinces of the Low Countries (the present-day Netherlands) agreed to protect each other against the Spanish army, which had previously controlled them. They existed as a confederacy of seven independently governed provinces joined together by the States General, a federal government. In the 17th century, the Dutch Republic prospered as the Dutch East and West India Companies dominated world trade. The Dutch Republic ended in 1787 when the Netherlands were invaded by Prussia. Dutch East India Company Ship, c. 1600

The House of Commons is the lower house of the British Parliament. Members of the Commons were elected. Over the course of the eighteenth century, the House of Commons gained more and more power. Chamber of the House of Commons, Westminster Palace, London

England had a class of nobles, also called peers, who owned vast tracts of land and inherited titles of nobility (Duke, Lord, etc.). The monarch can create new peers, and members of the peerage are entitled to seats in the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament. The House of Lords

The king of England at this time was George III, who ruled from 1760 until his death in 1820.

The loose confederation of states that became modern Switzerland first formed at the end of the thirteenth century. In the eighteenth century, the confederacy was nominally a republic but was ruled by an oligarchic group of aristocrats.

The Republic of the Seven United Netherlands, or the Dutch Republic, was a confederation of seven provinces. This confederation lasted from 1581 to 1795. This period constituted what is often called the "Dutch Golden Age," when the Dutch ruled a maritime empire around the globe and was an influential economic power. Dutch East India Trading Company Ship, c. 1600

This is contradicted by other documents here.

The word "dun" is defiined as, "noun 2. a person, esp a hired agent, who importunes another for the payment of a debt<br> Melville relates how the business, legal, and government worlds of Wall Street are combined within the character of Nippers, as he seemed to have been involved in Wall Street politics that incurred debts to be paid. This mingles with Thoreau's idea of government as a legally binding, debt-incurring instrument.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Financial Services, launched a new webpage dedicated to tracking President Trump’s destructive actions against consumers, investors, and the economy.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, or DIAND, is now referred to as Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, or INAC. Under the Federal Identity Program, INAC is a department of the Canadian Government in charge of policies relating to the indigenous peoples of Canada. This includes the First Nation, the Inuit and the Métis. INAC's responsibilities and actions are largely determined by careful negotiations and legal action, while fulfilling the government's constitutional obligations in the North. Some of their obligations include, improving social well-being and economic growth, developing healthier more sustainable communities and environments, and to continue to care for the North and its development for the betterment of all Canadians. Through the Government of Canada and the Indian Act, INAC works to provide support to reserves in areas of education, housing, community infrastructure and social prosperity.

For more information visit https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010023/1100100010027

Citations

Government of Canada; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada; Communications Branch. "About Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada." N.p.

Interesting that government was expected to have a religious aspect. Whereas, today people hate that politicians use God's time to justify their choices.

Women are not put in history. not then and still not today.

black women are being erased from the discussion. Race in general plays a role on how much a topic is spoken about. This case was not even mentioned or discussed until black women started the talk.

Where is the Judicial Branch? Here are the 3 Branches of Government: https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government.

Deborah Meier points out that democracy has to be learned, and we aren't teaching it adequately. Most schools are authoritarian environments where students are taught, explicitly and implicitly, to do what they're told. We need to give kids experience with democracy -- productive debate, compromise, trial and error, and acknowledging one's own mistakes.

government

This can also be compared with the more recent, although dated, Vietnam War in which the citizen of the U.S. were opposed, but the government was interested.

Doug Muder points out that "freedom" is often invoked by people who want to deny rights to others. He says "big government" is often required to enforce rights. A strong example is the southern states during the century following the Civil War -- and even still today.

I agree. But it is also true that our big government has some serious problems. It is too often an abuser of rights, rather than a defender. As usual, these abuses fall mainly on minorities and the poor. But they affect almost everyone.

http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html<br> Jonathan Wallace gives a strong argument that "natural rights" don't exist. Rights are determined by the consensus of a society. They do not have or need any stronger justification.

It's my firm belief that "big" vs "small" government is a juvenile argument. It's much more productive to ask what things government does well and what things it doesn't. Make it as large as necessary to handle the things it does well.

While a statement like "I don't like big government" basically renders this person's politics dismally weak to me, I'll try to read the rest of the article anyway.

Some members of UK Parliament think it's a fine idea to spend thousands of pounds of public funds on portraits of themselves.

https://www.fbo.gov/ (Federal Business Opportunities) is the hub for all US government contracting documents, including RFPs (Requests for Proposals), RFIs (Requests for Information), and announcements of awarded contracts. This EFF page explains how this site is a good tool for journalists.

This is a sample annotation.

Elinor Ostrom shared the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on governance of the commons -- finite resources shared by a community. She studied such communities, and derived eight principles, which are summarized on this page and on Wikipedia.

Elinor Ostrom

So even in a hands free scenario, the market and society are still being structured by the government..? Does that really leave it to be hands free? The way the government decides to structure it surely must have an influence on how the turnout is

People aren't just unhappy for no reason.. are we taking into account everyone's response to these movements? I know not all societies are governed by a democracy, but it's still important to take into account how citizens will react to changes implemented by the government

This is a difficult reading. Try your best.

Study Questions:

According to Locke, why is “man” willing to give up the natural condition of freedom?

Why does “man” enter into a condition of society and law?

The two paragraphs that follow are spot on. Nerds think government doesn't do anything right and they see government as this monolith thing apart from themselves rather than something they can and should work to affect, rather than circumvent.

One thing I got out of reading Graeber's "Democracy Project" was the idea that it is not rational people that inhabit the middle of the political spectrum. Most people are more radical than the media makes it seem. The media reinforces the narrative that if you hold strong political opinions you are a radical. Your neighbors think you're crazy. You should probably just follow the herd, more.

While there are definitely fundamentalists at the political extremes, there are also great thinkers.

Lots of good information here.

However, we have to be extremely wary of importing too many things from the technology world into governments. "Move fast and break things" is great when you can just roll out a patch, but not so good when it costs a generation their education or health care.

UK government intervening to make text-mining for non-commercial purposes exempt from copyright.

These are all things that are still very relevant to countries and societies around the world. Our government is at a standstill right now because they cannot deliberate and come to an agreement.

Practice of government equals end results.

Four forms of government. Judgement lies with government.

Qualities of governments and qualities of the individual.

Knowledge of government: tenants of political persuasion.