The players in my situation are likely to act within the three divisions of power I already described; money, power of legislation, and power of coercion. I think that the actions to be taken will fall under each of these divisions. For example, the U.S. Government's actions fall under their ability to influence the situation with their money as opposed to the cartels who might base the majority of their action under the power of coercion. I think that each player will act under the three divisions of power, each to different degrees.
All of the actors on the international scale will have to choose whether to remain with a depreciating dollar as the world's reserve currency or to begin diversifying their reserves with another currency. I will have to define the preferences of each actor for their favored reserve alternative. Then I will have to see how many scenarios there could be where there is enough support for a single alternative. Each actor can choose to either initiate a sell-off, participate in a sell-off (if one is initiated), stick with the dollar, or change their preferences.
Each of the Supreme Court Justices are able to vote just once. This is their main option. However, there is also an influencing factor within the social interactions of the Justices. Like I mentioned previously, the Justices with more time in the Supreme Court may be able to influence the new members or ones that don't have as much salience as they do. After a first vote is submitted over an issue, the senior Justice on each side of the division is allowed 30 minutes to choose a Justice of their choice to write an argument for their side of the issue. After the arguments are written, they submit their view and revote. Because of this process of voting multiple times, the Justices are able to influence the others, depending on their salience on the issue and influential power.
The apparent choices would be: leave the law as it is, make alternative methods of obtaining cells legal, or making it entirely legal. There do not seem to be many other options, except maybe to establish some sort of committee that would make future rulings on the matter if the court does not wish to make a permanent law concerning stem cell research. This committee however would simply be a delay of the decision and not really another option.
For my prediction the actions available would be either to reinstate the death penalty or to keep everything as is. Other options do not really seem to exist, although there may be some variation on how it will be reinstated (such as moving fully forward and getting a law passed now or just gathering more support for further legislative sessions.)
The Senate and House of Representatives both have the choice to pass through their respective house a healthcare bill. The President has the options to either veto such bill or sign it into law. Though lobbyists and the American people have no formal power, they have the option to put pressure on both Congress and the President to pass legislation.
The actors in my scenario have lots of different choices. Rowling has the choice to put a stop to the whole thing at any moment. Likewise, her publisher can say yes or no to any proposal. The readers don't have quite the same choices, but they get to choose whether or not to pick up the book if/when it is published. All choices in this situation are based on monetary gain and popularity. No decisions are going to be made unless they are profitable and easily marketed.
The actors in my situation have many options. Obama and his opponent have opted to run for (re)election, but they could also drop out before the election takes place. They must choose platforms, advertising strategies, people to run their campaigns, and many more things.
The American people have the option to vote, not vote, help campaign, listen to campaigns, inform themselves of the issues at play in the election, etc.
The Republican party has options when it comes to choosing their candidate, and that candidate has options when it comes to choosing a running mate.
The actors’ amounts of relative power vary greatly. The Obama Administration has the most power because Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and at the end of the day all the troops in Afghanistan follow his orders, not the orders of Congress or the Afghan Government. The Congress has the second greatest amount of power because it has control over the federal budget and the President can be bent to the will of Congress because he needs their cooperation if he wants to put through other legislation and get it through Congress and back to his desk. The Afghan government, although worth being considered, has the least amount of power; if the Afghan Government wants the U.S. out of the country it can simply kick the U.S. troops out. This would be unwise though because despite some resentment towards the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government still needs the U.S.’ assistance if it wants to continue to grow more and more stable and powerful. Thus the Afghan Government would be unwise to give U.S. troops the boot and forsake all U.S. assistance, which is a possibility if we no longer have troops in the country. The insurgent forces have a moderate amount of power because if they stop their attacks then the U.S. would feel a lot safer leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Afghan people and pulling the U.S. military out of the country.
My actors have about a bazillion possible choices: who to hire to run their campaigns, general strategies (based off their strengths and weaknesses and records), whether to attack or not, where to run advertisements, who to pressure for endorsements (or not), etc. At the end of the day, I think their most important choices are going to be a) where do I concentrate my resources, and b) who do I try to run out of the race?
Regarding the first choice, candidates could choose to conserve resources in the early stages of the process by avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire and focusing on Super-Tuesday states (although this didn't work out very well for, say, Rudy Giuliani in 2008); or they could go the traditional route and slug it out in the early primaries, winnowing the field and getting their name into the race from the get-go (which I think they will all do, basically).
Regarding the second choice: I think this will depend in large part on who the perceived front-runner is, but more generally each candidate will try to run out 1) any candidate of no use to them who shows weakness, and 2) any candidate similar to them in a manner which they plan to lean on as a primary selling-point.
The available actions for some of my actors (primarily the political parties) include: deciding whether or not to field a candidate, who that candidate will be, and if they should form some sort of coalition with another party or group in Egypt. The other actors, such as the Coptic Christians and the Revolution Youth Coalition, have the option to keep putting pressure on the government to form the democracy that they believe the country needs. They also have the option to form political parties that will hold this belief or to influence the newly forming political parties.
The only actors that can change anything is the Dominican government anyone else can only annoy or put pressure on them. If the UN or other states economically punished the DR then their will be abrupt change but otherwise everyone does what they can. Human rights groups can keep fighting it and bringing awareness. The best thing they can do is to educate future and current education. Because it will take a societal change in order for these discriminatory immigration laws to get repealed.
The choice of the pre-Supreme Court time period comes down to whether Obama and Eric Holder or Governor Brewer would decide to back down. This would only happen if the other side would agree outside of court to their demands. This would render my actual prediction moot, but is unlikely.
The choice of the Supreme Court Justices is whether or not to repeal SB 1070 based on the violation of the Supremacy Clause. In particular, the choices of Justice Kennedy and Justice Kagan are the most unknown and the most important.
The players in my situation are likely to act within the three divisions of power I already described; money, power of legislation, and power of coercion. I think that the actions to be taken will fall under each of these divisions. For example, the U.S. Government's actions fall under their ability to influence the situation with their money as opposed to the cartels who might base the majority of their action under the power of coercion. I think that each player will act under the three divisions of power, each to different degrees.
ReplyDeleteAll of the actors on the international scale will have to choose whether to remain with a depreciating dollar as the world's reserve currency or to begin diversifying their reserves with another currency. I will have to define the preferences of each actor for their favored reserve alternative. Then I will have to see how many scenarios there could be where there is enough support for a single alternative. Each actor can choose to either initiate a sell-off, participate in a sell-off (if one is initiated), stick with the dollar, or change their preferences.
ReplyDeleteEach of the Supreme Court Justices are able to vote just once. This is their main option. However, there is also an influencing factor within the social interactions of the Justices. Like I mentioned previously, the Justices with more time in the Supreme Court may be able to influence the new members or ones that don't have as much salience as they do. After a first vote is submitted over an issue, the senior Justice on each side of the division is allowed 30 minutes to choose a Justice of their choice to write an argument for their side of the issue. After the arguments are written, they submit their view and revote. Because of this process of voting multiple times, the Justices are able to influence the others, depending on their salience on the issue and influential power.
ReplyDeleteThe apparent choices would be: leave the law as it is, make alternative methods of obtaining cells legal, or making it entirely legal. There do not seem to be many other options, except maybe to establish some sort of committee that would make future rulings on the matter if the court does not wish to make a permanent law concerning stem cell research. This committee however would simply be a delay of the decision and not really another option.
ReplyDeleteFor my prediction the actions available would be either to reinstate the death penalty or to keep everything as is. Other options do not really seem to exist, although there may be some variation on how it will be reinstated (such as moving fully forward and getting a law passed now or just gathering more support for further legislative sessions.)
ReplyDeleteThe Senate and House of Representatives both have the choice to pass through their respective house a healthcare bill. The President has the options to either veto such bill or sign it into law. Though lobbyists and the American people have no formal power, they have the option to put pressure on both Congress and the President to pass legislation.
ReplyDeleteThe actors in my scenario have lots of different choices. Rowling has the choice to put a stop to the whole thing at any moment. Likewise, her publisher can say yes or no to any proposal. The readers don't have quite the same choices, but they get to choose whether or not to pick up the book if/when it is published. All choices in this situation are based on monetary gain and popularity. No decisions are going to be made unless they are profitable and easily marketed.
ReplyDeleteThe actors in my situation have many options. Obama and his opponent have opted to run for (re)election, but they could also drop out before the election takes place. They must choose platforms, advertising strategies, people to run their campaigns, and many more things.
ReplyDeleteThe American people have the option to vote, not vote, help campaign, listen to campaigns, inform themselves of the issues at play in the election, etc.
The Republican party has options when it comes to choosing their candidate, and that candidate has options when it comes to choosing a running mate.
The actors’ amounts of relative power vary greatly. The Obama Administration has the most power because Obama is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and at the end of the day all the troops in Afghanistan follow his orders, not the orders of Congress or the Afghan Government. The Congress has the second greatest amount of power because it has control over the federal budget and the President can be bent to the will of Congress because he needs their cooperation if he wants to put through other legislation and get it through Congress and back to his desk. The Afghan government, although worth being considered, has the least amount of power; if the Afghan Government wants the U.S. out of the country it can simply kick the U.S. troops out. This would be unwise though because despite some resentment towards the U.S. military’s presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan Government still needs the U.S.’ assistance if it wants to continue to grow more and more stable and powerful. Thus the Afghan Government would be unwise to give U.S. troops the boot and forsake all U.S. assistance, which is a possibility if we no longer have troops in the country. The insurgent forces have a moderate amount of power because if they stop their attacks then the U.S. would feel a lot safer leaving Afghanistan in the hands of the Afghan people and pulling the U.S. military out of the country.
ReplyDeleteMy actors have about a bazillion possible choices: who to hire to run their campaigns, general strategies (based off their strengths and weaknesses and records), whether to attack or not, where to run advertisements, who to pressure for endorsements (or not), etc. At the end of the day, I think their most important choices are going to be a) where do I concentrate my resources, and b) who do I try to run out of the race?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first choice, candidates could choose to conserve resources in the early stages of the process by avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire and focusing on Super-Tuesday states (although this didn't work out very well for, say, Rudy Giuliani in 2008); or they could go the traditional route and slug it out in the early primaries, winnowing the field and getting their name into the race from the get-go (which I think they will all do, basically).
Regarding the second choice: I think this will depend in large part on who the perceived front-runner is, but more generally each candidate will try to run out 1) any candidate of no use to them who shows weakness, and 2) any candidate similar to them in a manner which they plan to lean on as a primary selling-point.
The available actions for some of my actors (primarily the political parties) include: deciding whether or not to field a candidate, who that candidate will be, and if they should form some sort of coalition with another party or group in Egypt. The other actors, such as the Coptic Christians and the Revolution Youth Coalition, have the option to keep putting pressure on the government to form the democracy that they believe the country needs. They also have the option to form political parties that will hold this belief or to influence the newly forming political parties.
ReplyDeleteThe only actors that can change anything is the Dominican government anyone else can only annoy or put pressure on them. If the UN or other states economically punished the DR then their will be abrupt change but otherwise everyone does what they can. Human rights groups can keep fighting it and bringing awareness. The best thing they can do is to educate future and current education. Because it will take a societal change in order for these discriminatory immigration laws to get repealed.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of the pre-Supreme Court time period comes down to whether Obama and Eric Holder or Governor Brewer would decide to back down. This would only happen if the other side would agree outside of court to their demands. This would render my actual prediction moot, but is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of the Supreme Court Justices is whether or not to repeal SB 1070 based on the violation of the Supremacy Clause. In particular, the choices of Justice Kennedy and Justice Kagan are the most unknown and the most important.