North Korea

  In 1945, once WWII had come to an end, Soviet troops occupied the North, while U.S. troops controlled the South.  In 1948,  Red Army-trained Kim Il-sung was appointed the North's leader.  But in 1950, after declaring independence int he South, North Korea invades.   In 1953, the Armistice ends Korean War, costing two million lives.  In 1980,  Kim Il-sung's son, Kim Jong-il, becomes the new leader.  From 1996 on for a few years, famine is spread throughout Korea, greatly affecting the North, yet the leaders not doing anything about it.  
  In 2013, North Korea carries out its third nuclear test, and in May they test four short-range missiles in two days. In July of 2013, Panama charges the crew of a North Korean ship detained after it was found to be carrying weapons; Cuba claiming it sent the weapons to North Korea for repairs.  In September 2013, China bans all exports of materials that could be used in the making of bombs/missiles to North Korea.  At the end of the year, Kim Jong-un's uncle, Chang Song-thaek, was executed after being found to have attempted to overthrow the state.  
  I do not think there will be a regime change or state change in North Korea anytime soon.  Kim Jong-un is so ignorant towards any opinion from anyone but his own thought process that it would have to take the world to move his mountain.  The people of North Korea are trapped there- physically and emotionally, that they are too scared to say or do anything.  As shown in the Frontline video, only a few of the citizens there are brave enough to sneak footage or communicate with outsiders- even escape!  The streets are filled with feces, young children the age of 5 are out on the streets barefoot, begging, and families are being executed because a distant relative (whom they didn't even know was related to them) did something wrong, therefore causing the entire "family" to be executed.  There may be a chance for North Korea once Kim Jong-un dies, assuming his successor isn't one of his chosen people. 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secret-state-of-north-korea/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2010/02/a_nation_of_racist_dwarfs.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612

http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2013-94b0/survival--global-politics-and-strategy-june-july-2013-532b/55-3-02-fitzpatrick-76b6

Politics & Media

  Agenda setting is one of the main ways in which news media influences politics.  Policy agenda includes the issues that attract serious attention in congress, often as a result of the bad economy (job scarce, bad business, economics, etc.).  National news media engages in agenda settings so much that the media has the opportunity to influence what's put on the agenda.  The media draws attention to both the public and government officials.
  The president tends to have an advantage over Congress in gaining media attention because first off, he is the leader of the United States of America, he is more powerful than any single voice of Congress, and while Congress is composed of many people, resulting in many voices trying to be heard through controversy, the president is one voice and it is easy to hear.
  According to the preceding table, it it obvious that older people have always watched more Nightly News than the younger generations.  Yet from 1974 to 2002, less people watch the news as a result of the constantly indecisive, crazy way Congress is portrayed on T.V. People were much more interested in politics in the 1900s than the 20th century, possibly as a result of the media "fight" for attention between Congress and the President.

United States Chambers of Congress

  The United States Congress is made up of majority party exerting substantial influence over lawmaking. But even though one chamber may pass a law with no trouble, it doesn't always mean the other will.  Two advantages the majority party in the United States House of Representatives has in lawmaking, is the Speaker of the House, and how the work of the House is usually done in committees, which are full of members from the House in each committee, hence giving more power and say to the House of Reps.  The House is so full of power, as they control Congress's agenda, most committee chairs, and when and where things happen with lawmakers and members of Congress.
  The House and Senate both hold different powers which makes it less likely for a law to be passed by the other.  In the Senate, they are able to filibuster laws, causing a bill from the House to be knocked down.  The House on the other hand has a "rule committee" in which they are able to debate and then kill a bill.  Many bills go through this back and forth process and are sometimes knocked down, and revised multiple times before they make it to the Executive Branch for the President's signature. 
  A filibuster allows the Senate to kill a law that the House passed on its way to the Executive Branch.  Also, a germaneness occurs after the House's "rule committee" denies a bill so the Senate adds to the bill and then sends it back, yet the House once again doesn't agree to pass it and there filibusters it. 

Congress Finance Reforms

  Over the last decade, the U.S. Congress has debated many campaign finance reforms including eliminating soft money, and raising limits on individual contributions.  Soft money is the money donated to a campaign as a whole rather than a particular candidate himself.  The limit stated is a $1,000 to $2,000 donation.  In regards to eliminating this soft money, many are in favor because of the strict regulation on how much can be donated, and the thought that such a "small" amount of money couldn't really make a difference in an campaign/election.  Yet people against eliminating soft money are angry because the money is unregulated, so no one person is pointed at when the candidate they donated to wins or not because of not enough of, or plenty of money to win.  It's also argued that it goes against out First Amendment right for freedom of speech- both for those for and against eliminating it. 
   Raising limits on individual contributions is a constant struggle as to weather or not that would be a good idea.  Individuals in favor of an increase agree that it decreases the influence of PACs, and right now it decreases the restrictions of the First Amendment.  Those against an increase argue that the rich will have much more of an influence because they will be able to contribute much more money, allowing that candidate to be more likely to sway the opinions of the public and win the campaign.  Also, some agree that there is already way too much money in the process already, and Americans need to slow down with there huge contributions.