Those 3 journal entries are a minimum of 250 words for each idea reflection per idea reflection. You can go longer on text or video if needed. If you are doing text it would run about 2000 words for the three weeks of reflections and about 2750 words in the final journal which will cover four weeks. The format is your choice depending on your comfort level with technology and what you feel best fits your topic and creative inspiration. It could be a written Word doc. It could be a video. You could include your own creative work such as photographs, memes, graphics, artwork, poems, songs, graphs, diagrams, and tables. You can also use PowerPoint (link from Google Drive in your assignment post), Prezi, or an audio file. Include links to what is being discussed in your reflections when its from something other than our course. If you are using video and it is a file smaller than 500 mb you can upload it directly to Canvas. This can be a painless and enjoyable learning process if you do it regularly. If an idea grabs you as you are reading the Canvas site or the Our Own Worst Enemy book, do a short write-up. If you wait until a day before it’s due, or worse, the day of, it will be unpleasant. Credible sources are a must As you analyze the different ideas, your evaluation of the pluses and minuses of each idea is up to you. You will not be graded or judged on your beliefs and values. This course is about reflecting on critical political questions and issues and learning how to think, not what to think. You are required to include citations and supporting evidence for all your views. See the next page for definitions of credible sources. Use it as a checklist. If it meets all the criteria use the source. If it doesn't meet all criteria don't use it. You are responsible for vetting your sources before using them in this course! https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/how-to-get-a-better-grade-on-an-assignment https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/how-to-get-a-better-grade-on-an-assignment How to Get a Better Grade on an Assignment To improve your grade on assignments use the following list of things to do and things to avoid. Use it as a checklist as you edit your assignment. The more checks the better your grade will be. Above all remember as you analyze different perspectives, your evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of any political position is up to you. You will not be graded or judged on your beliefs and values. This course is about teaching you HOW to think, not WHAT to think. I do not care if you are Republican, Democrat, Right or Left or none of the above. What is important is to make the best possible argument you can for your position. The tips on this page will help you do just that. It begins with the six most common mistakes that I've seen in assignments. A) The Big Six: 1: Thoroughly read through the assignment prompt and mak.

1. Those 3 journal entries are a minimum of 250 words for each
idea
reflection per idea reflection. You can go longer on text or
video if needed.
If you are doing text it would run about 2000 words for the
three weeks of
reflections and about 2750 words in the final journal which will
cover four
weeks.
The format is your choice depending on your comfort level with
technology
and what you feel best fits your topic and creative inspiration. It
could be a
written Word doc. It could be a video. You could include your
own creative
work such as photographs, memes, graphics, artwork, poems,
songs,
graphs, diagrams, and tables. You can also use PowerPoint (link
from
Google Drive in your assignment post), Prezi, or an audio file.
Include links
to what is being discussed in your reflections when its from
something
other than our course. If you are using video and it is a file
smaller than 500
mb you can upload it directly to Canvas.
This can be a painless and enjoyable learning process if you do
it regularly.
If an idea grabs you as you are reading the Canvas site or the
Our Own

2. Worst Enemy book, do a short write-up. If you wait until a day
before it’s
due, or worse, the day of, it will be unpleasant.
Credible sources are a must
As you analyze the different ideas, your evaluation of the pluses
and
minuses of each idea is up to you. You will not be graded or
judged
on your beliefs and values. This course is about reflecting on
critical
political questions and issues and learning how to think, not
what to
think. You are required to include citations and supporting
evidence
for all your views. See the next page for definitions of credible
sources. Use it as a checklist. If it meets all the criteria use the
source. If it doesn't meet all criteria don't use it. You are
responsible
for vetting your sources before using them in this course!
https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/how-to-
get-a-better-grade-on-an-assignment
https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/how-to-
get-a-better-grade-on-an-assignment
How to Get a Better Grade on an

3. Assignment
To improve your grade on assignments use the following list of
things to do
and things to avoid. Use it as a checklist as you edit your
assignment. The
more checks the better your grade will be.
Above all remember as you analyze different perspectives, your
evaluation of the relative strengths and weaknesses of any
political
position is up to you. You will not be graded or judged on your
beliefs
and values. This course is about teaching you HOW to think,
not
WHAT to think. I do not care if you are Republican, Democrat,
Right or
Left or none of the above. What is important is to make the best
possible argument you can for your position. The tips on this
page
will help you do just that. It begins with the six most common
mistakes that I've seen in assignments.
A) The Big Six:
1: Thoroughly read through the assignment prompt and make
sure
you have done all required parts of the assignment. Don't throw
away
grade points unnecessarily. If you have any questions, or if
something is
unclear to you, reach out. I am here to help.
2: Define your terms. For example, writing "President Biden is
making the
US a socialist and maybe even a Communist country." (I heard
this from a

4. friend on Facebook so it is a real life example). Possible
responses: How
are defining you "socialism?" It's thrown around like a political
football as a
loaded word. But what defines it? What does it look like? How
do you know
when you see it? Thomas Dye, a conservative political scientist,
defines
socialism simply as central government control of the market.
He goes on
to say many of his fellow conservatives define any
governmental economic
regulation as socialism, but that is inaccurate as a capitalist
system with
some government regulation isn't socialism. Is a government run
utility
company or garbage service socialism? What is the difference
between
state central socialism, democratic socialism and social
democracies?
Know terms before throwing them around.
3: Examples help clarify meaning and definitions. Continuing
our
example above socialism above. For one example, Bernie
Sanders
identifies as a socialist, but isn't a socialist. He is social
democrat. Why?
For example, he would leave free market capitalism in place,
but have
more social programs. Social welfare programs with a capitalist
economy
aren't socialism. Social assistance programs historically were

5. created to
counter the appeal of socialism to workers. We'll have more on
this later in
the course.
4: Avoid generalizations. To use a simple example: All dogs
have curly
hair. Generalizations are the easiest statements to disprove.
Find one
exception and poof, it melts. By the way, did you know all the
superheroes
in the Marvel cinematic universe are ethical and serve only to
help people?
5: Cite evidence. We all have opinions. Its fine to swap
opinions over a
cup of coffee. A school assignment is different because it
requires
evidence. Evidence raises an opinion to the level of reasoned
argument. In
the socialism discussion above above I don't just assert Bernie
Sanders
isn't a socialist, and let it go as an obvious truth. I give reasons,
examples
and evidence. My sources are on the page linked. Which leads
us to the
next point.
6: Use credible sources. You are responsible for vetting your
sources
before turning in your assignment. My PSCI department
colleague
Sasha Breger Bush has excellent and concise advice on
determining what
a credible source is in her book Global Politics: A Toolkit for
Learners (pp

6. 80-81) co-written with Kay M. O'Dell. Hint, a Q-drop is
unlikely to be
credible. Her checklist is as follows:
-Identify the author. If author is not identifiable, do not use the
source/information (author can be a credible organization,
government, or
other source, such as the WTO as an author);
-Identify the author’s credentials and ensure they are experts in
the subject.
Credentials need not be academic but could also include
relevant life or
work experience, or time spent researching the subject matter.
Don’t use
source/information without good reason to trust the author’s
credentials;
-Identify source information. Does the author reveal where they
get their
information, such that their findings could be replicated? If not,
don’t use
the source or the information provided;
-Identify possible interests or affiliations. Is the source
affiliated with a
company, interest group, political party, or political persona? If
so, factor
https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/sanders-
and-warren-compared-to-socialisms?module_item_id=3645705
https://ucdenver.instructure.com/courses/488814/pages/sanders-
and-warren-compared-to-socialisms?module_item_id=3645705
this into analysis of the author’s/publisher’s bias in conveying

7. information in
the text.
B) Other sure fire ways to weaken your arguments (i.e. more
logical
fallacies to avoid). This advice from the Perdue University
writing lab is
worth reviewing.
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine
the logic of
your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or
irrelevant
points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that
supports
their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own
arguments and
watch for them in the arguments of others.
Slippery Slope: This is a conclusion based on the premise that if
A
happens, then eventually through a series of small steps,
through B, C,...,
X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we
don't want Z
to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either. Example:
If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment
eventually
the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban
Hummers.
In this example, the author is equating banning Hummers with
banning all
cars, which is not the same thing.

8. Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient
or biased
evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before
you have
all the relevant facts. Example:
Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be
a boring
course.
In this example, the author is basing his evaluation of the entire
course on
only the first day, which is notoriously boring and full of
housekeeping tasks
for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the
author
must attend not one but several classes, and possibly even
examine the
textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have
previously
finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a
conclusion on.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes
that if 'A'
occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.' Example:
I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have
made me
sick.
In this example, the author assumes that if one event
chronologically
follows another the first event must have caused the second. But

9. the illness
could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu
bug that had
been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across
campus.
There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water
caused
the person to be sick.
Genetic Fallacy: This conclusion is based on an argument that
the origins
of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character,
nature, or
worth. Example:
The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally
designed by
Hitler's army.
In this example the author is equating the character of a car
with the
character of the people who built the car. However, the two are
not
inherently related.
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove
is
validated within the claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Arguing that coal pollutes the earth and thus should be banned
would be
logical. But the very conclusion that should be proved, that coal
causes
enough pollution to warrant banning its use, is already assumed

10. in the
claim by referring to it as "filthy and polluting."
Circular Argument: This restates the argument rather than
actually
proving it. Example:
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks
effectively.
In this example, the conclusion that Bush is a "good
communicator" and the
evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically
the same
idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language,
breaking down
complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous
stories would be
needed to prove either half of the sentence.
Either/or: This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument
by reducing
it to only two sides or choices. Example:
We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth.
In this example, the two choices are presented as the only
options, yet the
author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing
cleaner
technology, car-sharing systems for necessities and
emergencies, or better
community planning to discourage daily driving.

11. Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person
rather than his
or her opinions or arguments. Example:
Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all
dirty, lazy
hippies.
In this example, the author doesn't even name particular
strategies Green
Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on
their merits.
Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in
the group.
Ad populum/Bandwagon Appeal: This is an appeal that presents
what
most people, or a group of people think, in order to persuade
one to think
the same way. Getting on the bandwagon is one such instance of
an ad
populum appeal.
Example:
If you were a true American you would support the rights of
people to
choose whatever vehicle they want.
In this example, the author equates being a "true American," a
concept that
people want to be associated with, particularly in a time of war,
with
allowing people to buy any vehicle they want even though there
is no
inherent connection between the two.

12. Red Herring: This is a diversionary tactic that avoids the key
issues, often
by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
Example:
The level of mercury in seafood may be unsafe, but what will
fishers do to
support their families?
In this example, the author switches the discussion away from
the safety of
the food and talks instead about an economic issue, the
livelihood of those
catching fish. While one issue may affect the other it does not
mean we
should ignore possible safety issues because of possible
economic
consequences to a few individuals.
Straw Man: This move oversimplifies an opponent's viewpoint
and then
attacks that hollow argument.
People who don't support the proposed state minimum wage
increase hate
the poor.
In this example, the author attributes the worst possible motive
to an
opponent's position. In reality, however, the opposition
probably has more
complex and sympathetic arguments to support their point. By
not

13. addressing those arguments, the author is not treating the
opposition with
respect or refuting their position.
Moral Equivalence: This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with
major
atrocities, suggesting that both are equally immoral.
That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler.
In this example, the author is comparing the relatively harmless
actions of a
person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This
comparison is
unfair and inaccurate.
Grader - Instructions Excel 2022
ProjectExp22_Excel_Ch04_Cumulative - Insurance Claims 1.1
Project Description:
You have been hired as a business analyst at SKV Insurance
claims department. As part of your responsibilities, you have
been asked to enhance the Excel workbook used to analyze the
department’s performance. The workbook contains records of
all claims resolved over the past year. You will convert the data
to a table, format the table, sort and filter the table, insert
calculations to evaluate key performance indicators, and then
prepare the worksheet for printing.
Steps to Perform:
Step
Instructions
Points Possible
1
Start Excel. Download and open the file named

14. EXP22_Excel_Ch04_Cumulative_Insurance.xlsx. Grader has
automatically added your last name to the beginning of the
filename.
0
2
Freeze the panes so the first row containing column headings
(Row 6) and first two columns (Columns A:B) on the
InsuranceClaims worksheet will remain static when scrolling.
6
3
Convert the data to a table, name the table
InsuranceClaims, and then apply the Light
Green, Table Style Light 21.
10
4
Remove duplicate records.
5
5
Add a new column to the table named
Duration.
9
6
Create a formula using unqualified structured references to
calculate the days required to resolve the incident (Date
Resolved – Date Created) and apply General Number Format.
14
7
Add a total row to display the Average days required to
complete a claim.
7
8
Sort the table by insurance agent in alphabetic order, add a

15. second level to sort by description, and then create a custom
sort order as follows:
Natural Disaster,
Flood,
Fire,
Theft,
Accident. Add a third level to sort by
duration smallest to largest.
7
9
Filter the table to only display closed claims as indicated in the
status column.
8
10
Use Quick Analysis to apply Blue Data Bars conditional
formatting to the column that contains duration. (On a Mac use
Conditional Formatting.)
6
11
Create a conditional format that applies Red fill and White
Background 1 font color to the incidents (column B) that
required 30 or more days to resolve.
10
12
Select Landscape orientation and set appropriate margins so that
the data will print on one page. Set the print scale to 70%.
6
13
Change page breaks so each agent’s information prints on its
own page.
7
14
Set row 6 to repeat on each page that is printed.
5
15

16. Save and close
EXP22_Excel_CH04_Cumulative_Insurance.xlsx. Exit Excel.
0
Total Points
100
Created On: 08/02/2022 1 Exp22_Excel_Ch04_Cumulative
- Insurance Claims 1.1
Republicans, Democrats and Populism
Many have commented that Donald Trump ran and governed as
a populist. But Harvard's Bonikowski and Gidron note that
populism is a campaign style with common themes which
historically has been deployed by Democrats and Republicans.
As a refresher we have defined
Populism is a political style that divides everyday
citizens from elites and foments anger against elites and social
outgroups that are said to be keeping ordinary people from their
good life. Populists then leverage that anger to gain political
power. Populists often don't have a coherent ideology, be it
conservative or liberal because they are focusing preexisting
citizen anger and wanting to do what's popular.
Populism comes in different varieties. Soft populism would be
promoting an economic plan, for example, while saying it will
"help Main Street, not Wall Street." Hard populism would be
something like the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the capitol and
attempts to overthrow the results of the 2020 the election. In its
hard forms populism can embrace conspiracy theories, favor
ineffective leaders who are about style, swagger, and
atmospherics (Nichols 2021), and who challenge democratic
institutions. In it's extreme form it can also increase the
likelihood of political violence.
Harvard's Bonikowski and Gidron (1994) note that both soft

17. and hard populism traditionally fueled outsider candidates.
Why? An outsider has more credibility to argue for change.
Interestingly, in 2020, Trump ran a populist campaign as an
incumbent with a record to defend. I excerpt sections of their
article below that seemed most relevant to our recent elections.
You can
read the full article here. Note that they suggest that
populist themes may boost voters self-image, conferring a sense
of moral superiority. (For those wanting a deeper dive Block
and Negrine (2017) further explore
the populist communication style and political identity
here comparing Trump with the late Venezuelan leader Hugo
Chavez and British BREXIT leader Nigel Farge. They argue that
populist politicians connect with aggrieved citizens through
cheeky or abrasive communication styles. That boosts the
morale of supporters via non-traditional media and raises
emotions against out-groups (and the mainstream media) as the
source the aggrieved citizens' problems.)
Bonikowski and Gidron write, "Within this tradition, populism
is predicated on a moral opposition between the people, who are
viewed as the only legitimate source of political power, and the
elites, whose interests are perceived as inherently contrary to
those of the populace. The specific elites targeted by populist
claims can vary, from elected politicians and business leaders to
intellectuals, but they are invariably portrayed as having
betrayed the public trust. In the case of elected officials, a
common accusation is that instead of representing the
electorate, they serve special interests in order to increase their
own political and economic power. Corporate elites, on the
other hand, may be seen as exploiting workers and consumers in
the pursuit of wealth, often through the cooptation of
politicians. In addition, populist claims often emphasize the
social distance between common people and the elites, with the
latter portrayed as out of touch and disconnected from the
everyday problems of the former. This is a particularly common

18. charge against intellectuals and civil servants. Finally, in some
variations of populist rhetoric, elites are framed as having been
co-opted by disparaged out-groups, which are placed outside the
symbolic boundaries of “the people” (Bail 2008).
"Specifically, we find that populism is predominantly used by
political challengers rather than incumbents and that it is more
prevalent among candidates who can credibly position
themselves as political outsiders. We show that reliance on
populism typically declines over the course of campaigns in
response to the changing characteristics of the audience (though
less so among incumbents), and that speeches given in the
geographic strongholds of each party are more likely to feature
populist language.
"Widely accessible narratives concerning moral worth, such as
those about the inherent greed of bankers or the inevitable
corruption of politicians, are likely to be particularly powerful,
because they encourage group comparisons that increase
people’s sense of self-worth (Lamont 2002) and produce
visceral emotional reactions that serve as powerful guides for
political decision- making (Haidt 2012).
"Here again, the binary classification typical of populist
rhetoric performs considerable discursive work: Bush portrays
himself as a regular American who believes in God and prays
regularly, while Dukakis is framed as belonging to a fringe elite
that is at its core un-American. The argument is reinforced by a
reference to a long and salient tradition of anti-intellectualism
in American public discourse (Hofstadter 1966).
"Nixon’s second presidential campaign sought to capture the
same anti-liberal sentiment in subtler ways. As noted by
Lowndes (2008, 130), 'Nixon identified an enemy within. The
antiwar movement was, he implied, more dangerous than the
external enemy itself.' He opposed the ostensible liberal rabble-
rousers with a “silent majority” of peaceful Americans, a vague
category with exclusionary class and racial undertones. Given
that these moral appeals were based on a binary opposition
between those who were committed to true American values and

19. those who sought to disrupt the American way of life, it is not
surprising that we find high levels of populism in this
campaign.
"As expected, Democrats rely primarily on economic populism
that targets business elites, while Republicans engage in anti-
statist populism that critiques federal political elites.
...our research has shown that neither the left nor the right holds
the monopoly on populism."
Play for Pay?
This fascinating article from Bloomberg News cites a survey
that shows that business people of both parties would support
campaign finance reform. The results here are counterintuitive
as the popular assumption is that business people prefer money
in politics as usual because of the favors that can result.
Business Executives Call Political Giving ‘Pay to Play’
By Julie Bykowicz - Jul 24, 2013 3:42 PM MT
Top U.S. business executives say major political contributors
such as themselves wield too much political influence.
A new poll of company leaders shows that 75 percent of them
regard political giving as “pay-to-play,” and even more said
they would like the campaign-finance system vastly improved or
completely rewritten.
“There’s an impression that there is money being used to buy
politicians, and that therefore they are not beholden to the
electorate but to donors,” said Steve Odland, president and chief
executive officer of the Committee for Economic Development
and a former CEO of
Office Depot Inc. (ODP)Links to an external site.
The committee’s online survey of 302 executives was conducted
May 29 to June 3 jointly by Democratic polling firm Hart
Research and Republican pollster American Viewpoint. The
Committee for Economic Development, a nonprofit business
policy group based in Washington, released the survey today as

20. part of its
push for more disclosureLinks to an external site. in
campaign finance.
Chamber Objection
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce objected to the survey’s
findings, sending a lawyer to the Committee for Economic
Development’s event today at the National Press Club in
Washington. The business trade group criticized the poll as
unscientific and agenda-driven, invoking the name of a
billionaire Democratic donor whose nonprofit Open Society
Institute has provided funding for CED programs.
“This survey is not representative of the business community
and given that
George SorosLinks to an external site. is contributing to
the organization conducting it, the results should not be
surprising,” said Blair Latoff Holmes, a Chamber spokeswoman,
in an e-mailed statement. “The Chamber and its members
understand that the real goal of the so-called disclosure push is
to limit or remove altogether the business voice from the
political and policymaking process.”
CED’s survey of executives was funded by the Omidyar
Network Fund Inc., a nonprofit established by EBay Inc. co-
founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife.
2012 Money
Trade groups such as the Chamber are among those that the
CED says are responsible for obscuring money in politics.
Together with unions and nonprofits, groups that don’t disclose
their donors invested more than $335 million in the 2012
federal elections, according to the Washington-based Center for
Responsive Politics.
The survey of executives found that 86 percent said
transparency in the campaign-finance system isn’t adequate.
Accompanying the poll is a CED report calling for more donor
disclosure.

21. “Political donors and spenders are finding it increasingly easy
to avoid public scrutiny, as a growing number of organizations
take advantage of porous rules to finance campaign activity
without revealing the sources of their funding,” wrote Anthony
Corrado, project director of CED’s Money in Politics and a
professor of government specializing in campaign finance at
Colby College in Waterville,
MaineLinks to an external site..
Distaste for the campaign-finance system bridges Democrats
and Republicans, according to the survey, with 71 percent of
self-identified Democrats and 68 percent of Republicans saying
that major contributors have too much influence on politicians.
SEC Rule
Almost all of the surveyed Democratic executives, as well as 79
percent of Republican executives, said they would favor an SEC
rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political
spending.
Increasingly, companies are voluntarily making that information
public. A September 2012 study by the Washington-based
Center for Political AccountabilityLinks to an external
site. found that 45 of 88 companies provide information about
their corporate donations, up from 36 a year earlier.
The Committee for Economic Development’s survey of
executives’ views comes a month after a Sunlight Foundation
report analyzed “elite” donors. That report found that just 0.01
percent of the U.S. population accounted for 28 percent of the
total $6 billion spent in the 2012 elections.
About 16.5 percent of those 31,385 elite donors listed their
occupation as “CEO” or “chairman” of a company, according to
the foundation, a Washington-based group that advocates for
increased government transparency.