I'm a poly sci. major and I love these! While I have to read a whole chapter that covers each of these episodes, Craig has done an awesome job of giving the base summaries in each episode. Short, sweet, and too the point. This content is great for anyone who isn't majoring in the field and wants to learn the basics. Thumbs up!
"Confused? Google it. This video will probably come up and then just watch this video. Or just continue watching this video." That had me laughing so much
I am loving this series so much, it is great. And I'm from the UK, please make a SEQUEL series on the government and politics of the United Kingdom (and possibly the EU too!!!)
***** don't worry mate, few of us understand as well, you try to bring a group of nations that have been at each other throats for the last few thousand years together, everything gets very complex very fast
People keep talking about how they want the Green brothers and yada yada yada, but I personally really love Craig. He's informative and pretty damn funny too.
He's informative because he is reading the script they wrote for him. As for being funny, I guess there is no accounting for taste but I find his lame attempts at humour to be grating and not even slightly funny. Cheers.
Agreed, i really like craig as well. Especially since hank and john are already in so many CC series (no offence, i think both brothers are good at what they do). But as a regular off CC i really enjoy the fresh face.
Nilguiri I agree with you though maybe its not the jokes themselves but his delivery. Johns jokes are usually in passing, they just sort of are part of the sentence to add some flavour. Craigs jokes are mostly "Heres a joke" hah? HAH?", leaving the pause and thus seems to be trying too hard to be funny than actually being funny. But, yeah otherwise still informative and thats the key thing. (Still was hoping for something broader than US politics but its a start I guess)
If you're reading this i'm betting that you procrastinated studying for your exam and now it's too late because the exam is tomorrow and you have to cram
Hah, I am not a crammer at the current instance in time but instead I am studying the week before the test, so hah. I am greater than you Troll God. That means I am a Titan figure!!!
No , I procrastinated the searching for a job worse than that i'm not even an american and never been in America yet I'm watching a video about America's Federalism
I'm one of those (non-American) people who pride themselves on understanding the American system and American politics better than my contemporaries, but this one video showed me that most of what I thought I knew was wrong. I'm going to spend all day watching the whole series now. Brilliant.
just what I need to get through being alone on Valentines Day, a video explaining the workings of the government of the Abandoned Colo-I mean United States
Why is it that anytime a video about the United States everyone gets so mad. if you don't like the US then watch a different video or mabye get more educated through this video so you can talk trash and know what your talking about.
Agent Washington the United States is very polarising, especially in Europe, mainly due to a lot of the hypocritical rhetoric from the Cold War, land of the free and all that, as long as you're white, rich, and not left wing, and the Cold War in general, we're still feeling the effects of that international dick measuring contest
Field Marshal Fry If by "specially polarizing, specially in Europe", you mean the whole world, then im ok with it! We're no fans of the US in Latin America either, they've done some nasty stuff here, again, based on the premise of freedom and human rights *terms and conditions might apply*
longlonglonglonguser Yeah, but the way understand it the polarisation consist of the 1 percent of rich people vs the 99% of poor, where the rich likes the US and everyone else hates them, right? Or is that too generalising?
you know when you've been watching too much harry potter when you're studying for exams and you watch this video and expect the black and white picture of the government officials to start moving and waving at you. (around 4:00 I tripped myself out xD)
Why does it matter what the founders wanted? I never understood that. They don't have to deal with the world today with today's problems. Lets be our own founders and make the kinda country we want to live in.
I think what they mean is what the founders would have wanted in spirit. The founders obviously wouldn't want obama in the white house or rights for women. The problem is everybody defines "in spirit" there own way. I'm Canadian so I'm cool with out westminster style parliamentary system (our senate needs reforms though).
That was kinda the whole point of amendments. As the country grows and changes, the succeeding generations would shape the constitution to better suit their lives
It's pretty sad that everybody is raving over which country is the best, when in reality this series is just a group of educational videos to help students pass A.P. exams in their schools.
+oops my Phan is showing ! WHEN I GOT SORT OF OUT OF SORTS WITH A BUDDY OF YOURS -- I MAY HAVE PUNCHED HIM, ITS A BLUR, SIR. HE HANDLES THE FINANCIALS....
YOU PUNCHED THE BURSAR? YES! I WANTED TO DO WHAT YOU DID, GRADUATE IN TWO, THEN JOIN THE REVOLUTION. HE LOOKED AT ME LIKE I WAS STUPID, I'M NOT STUPID.....
IT WAS MY PARENTS DYING WISH BEFORE THEY PASTED. YOU'RE AN ORPHAN, OF COURSE! I'M AN ORPHAN. GOD I WISH THERE WAS A WAR THEN WE CAN PROVE THAT WE'RE WORTH MORE THAN ANYONE BARGAINED FOR..
I've been stuck on an endless loop. I can't go any farther than 0:27. It is an endless cycle, google it then click on the video then google it then click on the video then google it then click on the video then google it then click on the video...
IDK if you guys think it's a good idea, but I think it would be really cool if they kind of did a recap at the end of each episode. I know they try to make it concise and keep the video short but it would be really helpful. Maybe a couple questions to test our understanding. Shout out to Thought Bubble and Craig! Long live CC!
I'm finding I rather like Craig, especially for something as important as government. Looking back on it, I wish I had someone like him to teach my U.S. government class. To this day I'm genuinely shocked how little of our actual government was taught in school. It was literally "You know about the three branches of government right? Cool, lets watch CNN."
"Its not what the founders would have wanted". Yeah, but I'm okay with that. Our founders didn't want women to vote, counted african-american slaves as 3/5 people, and owned slaves. Not exactly the best role models. In some aspects they were ahead of their times, but that was in the late 1700s. Its 2015, time to move on.
You, and most people, dont seem to understand 3/5 compromise. Slaves are not citezens in every civilization. The southern slave states wanted to keep them as slaves and deny them every right except when it came to population count for political representation. Higher count means more power, so they wanted the slaves to count as citizens in this one instance even though the obviously wouldnt be able to vote for any of them. The northern free states didnt want the slave states to "have their cake and eat it too". It would be nothing but further exploitation. The north was willing to tolerate slavery in the south but they didnt want slavery to influence national politics. However, there are x amount of people who need food and law enforcement which puts strain on the economy and government resources even if only y amount of people are actually citizens. So "all other peoples" would be only partially counted. Slavery is bad, but if you are going to tolerate its existence in an attempt to avoid fighting the bloodiest war in your nations history, the 3/5 is not a bad way to go.
I do actually understand how the 3/5 compromise came to be, but the fact that our founding fathers were okay with this solution is still pretty sickening. It doesn't excuse their behavior.
lalamelol It was funny because I was like "yeah I agree, argument from tradition is stupid" then you go off and start pretending like the founding fathers are evil because they don't have the same ethics as we do over 200 years later. I mean you can literally trash any philosopher or reformer of history with this kind of dumb logic, "they didn't have the same beliefs as a modern person so they're a evil/foolish". Please just stop that. What the founders wanted is important because they stated their goals, for example a love for liberty, local governance and a hatred for oppression and foreign wars. They attempted to setup the government specifically to these ends, the further we stray from the foundations the further we stray from those values of non oppression, non war, local governance, and liberty. So while I agree that it is not a completely valid argument to say something is against the founders beliefs etc... it is still a good thing to keep in mind as a soft check on overzealous "reformers".
I didn't say they were evil. They were human, and humans make mistakes. Therefore, hero worship and putting them up on a pedestal should probably be avoided. They did some good things, they did some bad things. But I would personally rather live now than back then when I would be denied basic rights because of the color of my skin or the lack of a penis. You can appreciate good things people have done while still acknowledging that they f*cked up in some ways. My problem is with hero worship and this strange fascination some conservatives have with going back to the "good 'ol days".
I really love your content! It is so education and peppered with humor. I am a native New Yorker and even for me you speak so fast. I wish you could speak just a little bit slower please. Thank you
I LOVE all of CC videos. I mainly use the Anatomy ones, but i just started these because i need help with government class since i have very little knowledge. ONE THING i want to say is, ya'll talk so fast, not even subtitles help. I find myself going back and reading again. Might as well talk slower even if it makes the video longer cause for people like me, it takes more than 10 minutes to understand everything.
I have to say, I really enjoy this video, it seem very straightforward and without a lean. I assume since it was from PBS that it would be. Anyways thanks
It's worth mentioning that the expansion of federal power did not begin with FDR. More likely it began with the 1905(?) earthquake in California that made it clear that certain issues were beyond the ability of the state government to deal with on its own, which led to the creation of FEMA.
True but it's often the case that state regulations are ineffective because all the neighboring states will use the regulation as a competitive edge, case example is firework sales. state regulations do nothing to control the sale of these industrial explosives because all their neighbors sell them anyways. Imagine if food processing worked like that, in Ohio all eggs must be properly cleaned and refridgerated before being sold to restaurants but in Indiana they don't so businesses just ship eggs from over the border to cut costs and everyone gets salmonella
Danthemanwithaplan7 I do too. Businesses recognized a while ago that people don't like fingers in their beef, so they do a good job at making sure none get in there. Better for business like that. What would we ever do without stuffy regulators to save us. -_- It's depressing that so many people think we need regulators to be safe. Businesses want your money, and to get it continuously, they have to provide you a good service or product. The only real complications that ensue are when businesses violate a contract or existing patent. That's why courts are very important. As well, if a business damages the environment, there needs to be precedent to deal with this. But in terms of actual businesses? Eh. Let me put it this way. The country would do just fine if we didn't require barbers to obtain a license.
UnknownXV you have a great deal of faith in people in general. But food for thought, the flow of information to the consumer is the key to seeing a change in a market. In the modern world the greatest tool to control the flow of information is money. Businesses have an awful lot of money. Just take a peek at Sea world and everything they do to obfuscate the truth about the condition of their animals and you can see what I mean.
Danthemanwithaplan7 Keep in mind, I like the idea of the FDA as a tool of information for us. I don't want them to have control over what people sell, but I do want them around to analyze products and make sure they contain what is said on the product labels, make sure their side effects are as listed, etc etc. I just don't like government agencies with the power to control. I just want information. Especially now in the age of the internet, that's all we really need.
this is helping me write my essay on Federalism as I don't understand Federalism AT ALL. I live in Norway and live under a parliamentary government. This is so weird and complicated??
I think it would be great if CrashCourse did a module on the European Union, for example. As a European, I'm curious to know what knowledge Americans generally have about the EU, and about how the various Treaties, Conventions etc work, and how European Member States interact with the Union, politically, legally and economically.
Says Lego. www.adrants.com/2005/09/lego-gets-pissy-about-brand-name.php Also Lego is a trunkation of 'leg godt" which means play well in danish. It is stylized in all caps. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego
Stephen Full Stylized brand name spellings are something that specific company's PR department has to adhere to and _nobody_ else. All that's missing is that you're telling us that we should write LEGO® ;)
Stephen Full Wasn't _my_ original point. Or at least not the entire point. And the company has as little say on how their brand name is capitalized as they have on how it's used in everyday speech; same logic applies.
So basically....... a state government only controls the policies specific to their state while the (overall) federal government provides the funding/support for said polices while also oversees inter-state policies (policies affecting more than 1 state) and making international agreements. right???????? The federal government is also in charge of delivering the mail. (forgot to mention)
Interesting that he mentions that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton advocated a smaller government, but then he mentions only George W Bush as wanting a bigger federal government. Why didn't he mention Obama? Obama is the biggest promoter of big federal government since FDR.
Most professionals like to wait until someone's legacy has or is starting to form so the facts can be more objective. Obama is still in office so his legacy is no where close to being set in stone. Some of his actions still have A LOT of subjectivity. For example, I do not think Obama is that much of a promoter when it comes to big government - especially, outside of healthcare. By avoiding subjectivity, CC can avoid unintentional bias and not look foolish in the future if Obama's legacy is different from their current perspective of him.
Probably because Obama's presidency isn't over yet so it it is too early to say if he ended up making government bigger or smaller based on ideology. What we know is that he hasn't come out as a big supporter of "Big Government". Nor does he want a smaller government. He has said he thinks government size needs to grow and shrink in order to take care of the people at any specific time to meet specific challenges. An example of this, and the "red flag" that Republicans love to wave, is that in his first two years, Obama increased government spending and federal employment. Of course, this was because he was battling the economic depression and ultimately it looks like his policies worked. For some reason Republicans don't like to talk about that part. The GOP loves to push a false dichotomy by claiming simplified binary phrases. Like "We are for small government!" thus implying that anyone not them is for big government, which is simply not true. Under Bush, not only did federal government grow, but it even gained a whole new branch in the Dept. of Homeland Security. Military spending increased, etc etc... now you can say this is because we were attacked, or you could say it was because of a mis-guided response to the attacks. Either way, he did increase the role of Government during his term.
Obama will be a tricky one for historians. He's actually the first of the last five presidents going back to the 1970s to have government employment drop (and by quite a bit). While health care reform increased the role of the federal government, the states have also wielded a lot of power, especially on marriage, abortion and gun regulations. You also have to consider the fact that the massive increase in federal government spending in 2009 was largely due to two bills signed by President Bush (fiscal 2009 began in October 2008, before Obama was even President-elect) -- those were the $700 billion bank bailout bill and H.R. 2638, which added up to about $1 trillion -- plus another big war supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, which was close to another $200 billion. Obama did away with the war supplementals and put them into the omnibus budget, which obviously made it bigger. Obama did pass a huge stimulus, but if you look at the numbers he's generally held the line on increasing the federal omnibus budget and has also decreased the deficit pretty rapidly.
Maybe they wanted to use relevant examples from recent past but did not want to comment on current politics to avoid...this exact sort of speculative criticism? Just a thought. No idea what their actual motives are.
Looking for a proper video on Federalism in India and stumbled upon this... Hope someone makes a video on Indian Federalism in an interesting way to learn same as this one..
