Party System in the US Analysis

Party System in the US Analysis NATURE OF THE PARTY SYSTEM This paper examines the nature of the party system in United States. This paper further identifies the reasons for the weaknesses of the American parties. The nature of the American party system is the two-party system. This is a party system whereby there are two dominant political parties that dominate the politics of a given state. Under the two party systems, one of the parties would hold a majority seat in the legislature. This party is referred to as the majority party (Wilkins Stark, 2011). On the other hand, the party that has fewer members in the legislature is normally referred to as the minority party. This concept of the two party systems has different meaning, depending on the type of the political system that a state has. For instance, under the presidential system of governance, it describes a situation whereby all elected officials belong to either one of the two dominant parties within the state. Third or more parties exist, but they rarely win an election (Hug, 2001). Because of these types of arrangements, a two party system normally leads to election rules such as a winner take all concepts. In a two party system, the chances of a candidate to win an elective post, for a major position are always difficult. However, these smaller parties have the capability of influencing the dominant parties that exists within the state. In contrast to a parliamentary system such as that of the United Kingdom, the two party system is an arrangement whereby two parties dominate an election, but there are the existence of other parties that win an election in their legislatures (Herrnson Green, 2002). The American politics is dominated by the Republicans, and the Democrats. Despite the dominance of these two parties, there is a third party referred to as the Tea Party. It is important to explain that the tea party does not dominate the American political system, and this is because its candidates have never won any American major political seat, such as the Presidency, or even a Governors position (Janiskee Masugi, 2007). The dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats in the American political system has existed for more than 100 years, where the Presidents are either elected from the Republican party, or from the Democrat Party. Currently, the American President is Barrack Obama, and he emanates from the Democrat Party. His predecessor was George Bush, who was elected from the Republican Party (Strangio Dyrenfurth, 2009). In as much as the Tea Party is not dominant, this party has the capability of influencing government policies, and the activities of the other two leading parties. On a specific note, the Tea Party has a considerable influence on the Republican Party. For instance, in 2013, the members of the Tea Party were able to collaborate with the Republicans for purposes of shutting down the government of President Obama. This is in their bid to oppose the health care policies that were being advocated by President Obama. Based on these facts therefore, we can denote that the nature of the American party system is the two party systems. The domination of the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and the influence of a smaller party, the Tea Party, satisfies the definition of a two party system in a presidential system. A two party system has a number of advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of the American two party systems is the fact that they provide information that is easily understandable to the American voters. Through these actions, the two parties are able to create order in the political system, and this is through a representation of a wide political ideologies or philosophy of the party. For instance, in the 2012 elections, campaigns between Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and the Democrat nominee, President Obama, the two candidates were able to present the ideologies and philosophies of their parties. The second advantage of the American party system, is that it gives a stable balance through the accommodation of various interests and opinions. The Republicans and the Democrats have different organs and interests groups within them, and therefore, these parties normally accommodate then interests of these groups. This is for purposes of receiving a wide support from them. Finally, the two party systems enable citizens of America to participate in the political process of the nation (Disch, 2002). This enables its citizens to take part in the process of governance, through the political system. This is unlike in China, where it is only the communist party that can take part in the governance process, and people cannot express their own opinion, rather than that of the party (Paulson, 2006). In a critique of the American two party systems, Baumgartner Jones (2009) explains that it plays a role in downplaying the emergence of alternative views, and it create the political competition to be less competitive. Furthermore, the American two party system manages to create a sense of voter apathy, and this is mainly because only two views are presented at the ballot box (Lye Hofmeister, 2011). This creates a perception that choices are limited, and hence it does not contribute to an extensive political debate within the country. Furthermore, the concepts of the winner takes it all, normally discourages other independent candidates from engaging in the political process. This is because if they lose elections, there is no way they would benefit. Bibby Maisel (2003) explains that because of the disadvantages of the two party system, there has been a weakening of the American political parties in the recent times. This is because power and money shifts from political organizations, to informal interest groups, and ad hoc committees. Furthermore, the emergence of grass root movements, and the decentralization of the structures of the party plays an influential role in the weakening of the parties (Lasser, 2012). Furthermore, the large amounts of money that are collected by candidates normally do not pass through the official structures of the party. This means that candidates are independent of the influences of the party, and this is because they are able to control their own campaign funds, instead of depending on the party for finances (Mckay, 2013). Furthermore, the American political system is populist, and this is because candidates are more concerned with their reputation with voters, as opposed to their reputation with the leadership of the party. Based on these facts, senators and congressmen normally vote against the interest of their parties, on most occasions. This is because most politicians normally seek to respond to the strong emotional feelings, of the public, in regard to particular or certain issues. Furthermore, American voters do not vote in blocks, and this means that they are likely to belong to the two dominant parties in the United States (Sartori Mair, 2005). Therefore, these voters are not easily influenced by powerful and influential political figures. However, candidates who have a strong grassroots support, and who have the capability of buying advertisement time, can play a significant role in influencing voters. Furthermore, money also plays a role in the weakening of the American political system. This is because candidates who have a lot of money can gain instant reputation, and make a name for them. Furthermore, a movement that has the capability of energizing the public, would manage to endorse its own for a political office. An example is the 2008 primaries between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, where Obama triumphed over the party establishment that were supporting Hillary Clinton (Valelly, 2013). Another example is the tea party victories in the senatorial primaries held by the Republican. This is an indication of the weakening of the Republican Party. Furthermore, the lack of a strong party structure is a factor that strongly contributes to the weakening of the American political parties (Welch, 2010). This is because parties have to look for donors to finance their campaigns, and this includes lobby groups, who can have a role in influencing the candidates to develop a policy that is advantageous to them. In conclusion, the nature of the American party system is the two party system. The political system is dominated by the Republicans and the Democrats. However, the current century has seen the weakening of the American parties. This is mainly because of the populist nature of the American political system, and a weak party structure that requires candidates to raise their own campaign money. This makes these candidates to be vulnerable to their donors, and mostly because they would be advocating for their interests. Furthermore, because of the populist nature of the American political system, candidates are not loyal to the party, but to the voters. This means that on most occasions, candidates would vote against the interests of their parties. This is because they want to gain a positive image that is attractive to their voters. The dominance of the Republicans and the Democrats parties has existed for more than 100 years, and this means that Presidents normally come from any of th e two parties identified. Bibliography: Top of Form BAUMGARTNER, F. R., JONES, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Bottom of Form Top of Form BIBBY, J. F., MAISEL, L. S. (2003). Two parties-or more?: the American party system. Boulder, Colo, Westview Press. Top of Form DISCH, L. J. (2002). The tyranny of the two-party system. New York, Columbia University Press. Top of Form JANISKEE, B. P., MASUGI, K. (2007). Democracy in California: politics and government in the Golden State. Lanham, Md, Rowman Littlefield. Bottom of Form Top of Form HERRNSON, P. S., GREEN, J. C. (2002). Multiparty politics in America: prospects and performance. Lanham, MD, Rowman Littlefield. Top of Form HUG, S. (2001). Altering party systems: strategic behavior and the emergence of new political parties in Western democracies. Ann Arbor, Univ. of Michigan Press. Top of Form LASSER, W. (2012). Perspectives on American politics. Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bottom of Form Top of Form LYE, L. F., HOFMEISTER, W. (2011). Political parties, party systems, and democratization in East Asia. Singapore, World Scientific. Top of Form MCKAY, D. H. (2013). American politics and society. American Politics and Society. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form PAULSON, A. C. (2006). Electoral realignment and the outlook for American democracy. Hanover [u.a.], Univ. Press of New England. Top of Form SARTORI, G., MAIR, P. (2005). Parties and party systems: a framework for analysis. Colchester, ECPR. Bottom of Form Top of Form STRANGIO, P., DYRENFURTH, N. (2009). Confusion the making of the Australian two- party system. Carlton, Vic, Melbourne University Publishing. Top of Form VALELLY, R. M. (2013). American politics: a very short introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form WELCH, S. (2010). Understanding American government. Boston, MA, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Top of Form WILKINS, D. E., STARK, H. K. (2011). American Indian politics and the American political system. Lanham, Md, Rowman Littlefield. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form

Drama at the Farm: A Canadian Survival Story Essay

Canadian Writer Margaret Atwood would argue that every country in the world has a single unifying and informing symbol, to act as a belief system that keeps everyone together and working for common ends. These unifying symbols manifest in the literature produce by authors and literary thinkers; whether or not it is done consciously or subconsciously. According to Atwood, in the United States â€Å"Frontier† is the unifying symbol, the exploration of new land, the west and independence from imperial powers. In the United Kingdom the â€Å"Island† is a distinct symbol of common national sentiments, the idea of the central island nation controlling its lands and wealth from behind the safety of its metaphorical walls; this symbol is perfectly represented by the medieval castles and fortresses of that nation. With these examples in mind Atwood states that the unifying symbol for Canadian Lifestyle, and consequently literature, is â€Å"Survival†. As a result of the Canada’s geographical shape, its vast landmass and bitter climate, as well as the nation’s origins as subordinate to imperial rule, Survival becomes the common thread which bonds the lives thought and experiences of all Canadians. It is more real to us than the frontier or the island. In her essay, † Survival : A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature†, Atwood goes into great detail about this idea of survival and victimization, she outlines her four victim positions with the intention of increasing understanding of Canadian literature, and how these guidelines apply to anyone, Canadian or otherwise. In â€Å"The Watcher†, by Guy Vanderhaeghe, Atwood’s concepts can be used to identify and understand the position of Vanderhaeghe’s main character, Charlie Bradley, as well as increase understanding of Vanderhaeghe’s work as a piece of distinctly Canadian fictional Literature. Atwood’s four victim positions can be used to understand characters from Canadian fiction from the distinctly Canadian point of view, survival. The hero of most Canadian fiction is the survivor, the main character or protagonist survives where the other characters do not, or they survive one ordeal only to succumb to something else, â€Å"The survivor has no triumph or victory but the fact of his survival; he has little after his ordeal that he  did not have before, except gratitude for having escaped with his life.†(Atwood 33). The Canadian protagonist or survivor doesn’t portray the myth that they can beat adversity to better themselves or their situation, rather they are no better of than before their ordeal, or maybe worse, by are fortunate to have escaped with their lives. The survivor is therefore inherently and unavoidably a victim in one form or another, and Atwood’s position can be use to identify and grasp a greater understanding of the survivo r character, his actions, thoughts, and decisions. To understand Charlie Bradley one must first understand the four basic victim positions. A person of the first victim position is in denial of the fact that they are the victim, usual their slightly elevated status above their peers makes them feel that anyone can succeed if they wanted to and those that don’t are just lazy. A person from the second victim position acknowledges their victimization but resigns to it because of feelings that it is the result of uncontrollable exterior forces such as fate, they feel their position as a victim is inevitable and cannot be changed. Individuals of the third position acknowledge their victimization but refuse to accept the role is inevitable as in position two. However a person in position three doesn’t use their frustration at their victimization in a creative manner, they don’t use their energy to change their position they just loath themselves and are jealous of those who are not victims. A person in position four is what Atwood calls â€Å"a creative non victim† (Atwood 38). For these individuals victimization is not a reality, they use their energy to rise above the existence of victimization and are positively creative with their situation. Vanderhaeghe’s main character from his short story, â€Å"The Watcher†, Charlie Bradley fits perfectly into Atwood’s definition of the second victim position. Charlie Acknowledges his victimization but feels there is nothing he can do about it. Evidence of Charlie’s position can be found numerous times throughout the text. From the very first sentence of Vanderhaeghe’s story one can cast type Charlie. He says, â€Å"I suppose it was having a bad chest that turned me into an observer, a watcher, at an early age.† (Vanderhaeghe 207). From this statement you already know that Charlie blames his situation as being an observer on his bad chest, an uncontrollable external for, he cannot control his sickness and so resigns to be a victim of it. The rest of the story centers around Charlie’s talent for observing events but never participating, the situation he deals with when he is shipped of to his grandmas farm and forced to deals with his mentally unstable aunt and her freeloading boyfriend Thompson. Charlie fancies himself a spy observing the details and doing nothing. More evidence of his position comes from thoughts on his aunt’s situation, Charlie says, â€Å"†¦ Evelyn, was evidence enough of how firmly bound we all are to the wretched wheel of life and its stumbling desires.† (Vanderhaeghe 221). Again resigning everything to the whims of fate. Charlie’s true position as the surviving victim comes at the end of the story when he is forced into the game, no longer a watcher, and must chose between taking the side of his Grandma or that of Thompson in identifying the assailants, who identity he does know to be the Ogden Brothers hired by his Grandma to beat up Thompson. â€Å"And now he is asking me to save him, to take a risk, when I was more completely in her clutches than he would ever be. He forgot I was a child. I depended on her.† (Vanderhaeghe 239). Charlie admits to withholding the truth to save himself, even if it meant hurting Thompson. Charlie is the survivor, he is the victim of circumstance be he has the foresight to save himself even if it isn’t the right thing to do. Canadian short stories are full of survivors, the characters created by Vanderhaeghe as well as those of many authors face different challenges than the characters of literature from other nations. Canada is a nation of survivors, if only just barely. Margaret Atwood is one Canadian writer who fully understands this survivor position and the levels of victimization that come along with it. Canadian heroes are the ones who face adversity to gain something, but those who are pounded by the outside world and are just able to have on to their lives. This situation, at least metaphorically, will be familiar to all Canadians and the great cross section of writers from various cultural backgrounds. Their diversity only reinforcing the notion that this country, the land changes you, give us all something in common, that unifying symbol that Atwood praises as the center of everything  Canadian. Survival. As Atwood aptly puts it, â€Å"A writer’s job is not to tell a society how it ought to live but how it does live.†(Atwood 42) Works Cited: Atwood, Margaret. â€Å"Survival.† Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature. Toronto: Anansi, 1972. 25-43. Vanderhaeghe, Guy. â€Å"The Watcher.† Man Descending. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1982.

Genesis vs. Iroquois Creation Myth Essay

All different cultures have their own creation stories, mostly all containing the elements of a Higher Power of some sort, how the power created the world, and the creation a human man. The Christian belief in the Genesis story has these key elements , as does the Iroquois creation myth, The World on the Turtle’s Back. Although these two creation stories share similarities, they also have some stark contrasts. These contrasts include, how the two cultures of the Native American Iroquois tribe and then Christians view life and aspects of good and evil, the way each culture views nature and the impact that has on their culture, and finally the way the Christian God and the Iroquois gods are portrayed to humans. First, the Iroquois culture and the Christian faith view good and evil very differently, but there is one similarity, both the cultures show that the concept of freewill creates the beginnings of a sort good and evil, a differentiation of two people.(Iroquois 28; Genesis 3:1-24) For the differences, the Iroquois myth has the belief that everyone is born with good and evil in them. Whereas, in the Genesis story, man is immaculate and perfect, until the woman is tempted by the serpent and the the man eats also of the forbidden tree, through his wife’s consent. One other difference is that the Iroquois didn’t necessarily believe in a good and evil, but a left and a right as it is put in the myth, and the Left and Right together ruled the days.(Iroquois 29), While in the Genesis story, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, showing His perfection and that while He is a merciful God, He can also be a God of judgment to show the people the errors of their ways. Additionally, the two cultures view nature very differently and it impacts each individual culture. The Iroquois culture believes that man and nature are equal as represented in the creation myth. One can find this true as the Native Americans were very respectful of the territories they were inhibiting and developing relations with animals, like the buffalo, instead of hunting them for food. In contrast, in the story of Genesis God gave man dominion over all the creatures of the Earth. (Genesis 1:28) The man to this day, hunts animals of all kinds and disrespects nature, with clear-cutting of forestry and pollution. Finally, the Christian God and the Iroquois gods are viewed differently in the eyes of a standard human. First off, the God of Christianity, is the only God. But, in the Iroquois culture there are multiple gods, who become the elements, and then the Iroquois praise these elements.(Iroquois 30) In Genesis, man is created in the likeness of God,(Genesis 1:27) but in the Iroquois myth man is created by another man. The Genesis God is thought of as more of a paternal God who loves His children but reprimands them when the children disobey, where the gods of the Iroquois is just revered and respected, no mention of punishment for humans is mentioned in the Iroquois myth. One similarity is the belief that the gods or God dwell in a place above the rest of the world, the Sky-World in Iroquois, or Heaven in the story of Genesis. To conclude, the two stories of The World on the Turtle’s Back and Genesis are very similar but, they also have their individual differences that really separate the two cultures. The way the two cultures view life and aspects of good and evil. The aspect each culture views nature and the impact that has on their culture. Finally, the way the Christian God and the Iroquois gods are portrayed to humans. Two completely different races , but similar beliefs in the development and creation of the planet Earth.

Sally Ride the First American Woman in Space

Sally Ride (May 26, 1951 – July 23, 2012) became the first American woman in space when she launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on June 18, 1983, on board space shuttle Challenger. A pioneer of the final frontier, she charted a new course for Americans to follow, not only into the country’s space program, but by inspiring young people, especially girls, to careers in science, math, and engineering. Also Known as Sally Kristen Ride; Dr. Sally K. Ride Growing Up Sally Ride was born in a suburb of Los Angeles in Encino, California, on May 26, 1951. She was the first child of parents, Carol Joyce Ride (a counselor at the county jail) and Dale Burdell Ride (a political science professor at Santa Monica College). A younger sister, Karen, would add to the Ride family a few years later. Her parents soon recognized and encouraged their first daughter’s early athletic prowess. Sally Ride was a sports fan at a young age, reading the sports page by the age of five. She played baseball and other sports in the neighborhood and was often chosen first for teams. Throughout her childhood, she was an outstanding athlete, which culminated in a tennis scholarship to a prestigious private school in Los Angeles, the Westlake School for Girls. It was there she became captain of the tennis team during her high school years and competed in the national junior tennis circuit, ranking 18th in the semi-pro league. Sports were important to Sally, but so were her academics. She was a good student with a fondness for science and math. Her parents recognized this early interest as well and supplied their young daughter with a chemistry set and telescope. Sally Ride excelled at school and graduated from Westlake School for Girls in 1968. She then enrolled at Stanford University and graduated in 1973 with bachelor degrees in both English and Physics. Becoming an Astronaut In 1977, while Sally Ride was a physics doctoral student at Stanford, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a national search for new astronauts and for the first time allowed women to apply, so she did. A year later, Sally Ride was selected, along with five other women and 29 men, as a candidate for NASA’s astronaut program. She received her Ph.D. in astrophysics that same year, 1978, and began training and evaluation courses for NASA. By the summer of 1979, Sally Ride had completed her astronaut training, which included parachute jumping, water survival, radio communications, and flying jets. She also received a pilot’s license and then became eligible for an assignment as a Mission Specialist in the U.S. Space Shuttle program. During the next four years, Sally Ride would prepare for her first assignment on mission STS-7 (Space Transport System) aboard the space shuttle Challenger. Along with hours of in-classroom instruction learning every aspect of the shuttle, Sally Ride also logged numerous hours in the shuttle simulator. She helped develop the Remote Manipulator System (RMS), a robotic arm, and became proficient at its use. Ride was the communications officer relaying messages from mission control to the space shuttle crew of the Columbia for the second mission, STS-2, in 1981, and again for the STS-3 mission in 1982. Also in 1982, she married fellow astronaut Steve Hawley. Sally Ride in Space Sally Ride launched into American history books on June 18, 1983, as the first American women into space when the space shuttle Challenger rocketed into orbit from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. On board STS-7 were four other astronauts: Captain Robert L. Crippen, the spacecraft commander; Captain Frederick H. Hauck, the pilot; and two other Mission Specialists, Colonel John M. Fabian and Dr. Norman E. Thagard. Sally Ride was in charge of launching and retrieving satellites with the RMS robotic arm, the first time it was used in such an operation on a mission. The five-person crew conducted other maneuvers and completed a number of scientific experiments during their 147 hours in space before landing at Edwards Air Force Base on June 24, 1983, in California. Sixteen months later, on October 5, 1984, Sally Ride rode into space again on the Challenger. Mission STS-41G was the 13th time a shuttle had flown into space and was the first flight with a crew of seven. It also held other firsts for women astronauts. Kathryn (Kate) D. Sullivan was part of the crew, placing two American women in space for the first time. Additionally, Kate Sullivan became the first woman to conduct a spacewalk, spending over three hours outside the Challenger conducting a satellite refueling demonstration. As before, this mission included the launch of satellites along with scientific experiments and observations of Earth. The second launch for Sally Ride ended on October 13, 1984, in Florida after 197 hours in space. Sally Ride came home to fanfare from both the press and the public. However, she quickly turned her focus to her training. While she was anticipating a third assignment as a member of the crew of STS-61M, tragedy struck the space program. Disaster in Space On January 28, 1986, a seven-person crew, including the first civilian headed to space, teacher Christa McAuliffe, took their seats inside the Challenger. Seconds after lift-off, with thousands of Americans watching, the Challenger exploded into fragments in the air. All seven on board were killed, four of whom were from Sally Ride’s 1977 training class. This public disaster was a great blow to NASA’s space shuttle program, resulting in the grounding of all space shuttles for three years. When President Ronald Reagan called for a federal investigation into the cause of the tragedy, Sally Ride was selected as one of 13 commissioners to take part in the Rogers Commission. Their investigation found the main cause of the explosion was due to the destruction of the seals in the right rocket motor, which allowed hot gasses to leak through the joints and weaken the external tank. While the shuttle program was grounded, Sally Ride turned her interest toward NASA’s planning of future missions. She moved to Washington D.C. to NASA headquarters to work in the new Office of Exploration and Office of Strategic Planning as a Special Assistant to the Administrator. Her task was to assist NASA in the development of long-term goals for the space program. Ride became the first Director of the Office of Exploration. Then, in 1987, Sally Ride produced â€Å"Leadership and America’s Future in Space: A Report to the Administrator, commonly known as the Ride Report, detailing suggested future focuses for NASA. Among them were Mars exploration and an outpost on the Moon. That same year, Sally Ride retired from NASA. She also divorced in 1987. Returning to Academia After leaving NASA, Sally Ride set her sights on a career as a college professor of physics. She returned to Stanford University to complete a postdoc at the Center for International Security and Arms Control. While the Cold War was waning, she studied the banning of nuclear weapons. With her postdoc complete in 1989, Sally Ride accepted a professorship at University of California at San Diego (UCSD) where she not only taught but also researched bow shocks, the shock wave resulting from stellar wind colliding with another medium. She also became the Director of the University of California’s California Space Institute. She was researching and teaching physics at UCSD when another shuttle disaster brought her temporarily back to NASA. Second Space Tragedy When the space shuttle Columbia launched on January 16, 2003, a piece of foam broke off and struck the shuttle’s wing. It wasn’t until the spacecraft’s descent to Earth more than two weeks later on February 1st that trouble caused by the lift-off damage would be known.​ The shuttle Columbia broke up with its re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven astronauts aboard the shuttle. Sally Ride was asked by NASA to join the panel of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to look into the cause of this second shuttle tragedy. She was the only person to serve on both space shuttle accident investigation commissions. Science and Youth While at UCSD, Sally Ride noted that very few women were taking her physics classes. Wanting to establish a long-term interest and love of science in young children, especially girls, she collaborated with NASA in 1995 on KidSat. The program gave students in American classrooms the opportunity to control a camera on the space shuttle by requesting specific photographs of Earth. Sally Ride obtained the special targets from students and pre-programmed the necessary information and then sent it to NASA for inclusion on the shuttle’s computers, after which the camera would take the designated image and send it back to the classroom for study. After successful runs on space shuttle missions in 1996 and 1997, the name was changed to EarthKAM. A year later the program was installed on the International Space Station where on a typical mission, more than 100 schools participate and 1500 photographs are taken of the Earth and its atmospheric conditions. With EarthKAM’s success, Sally Ride was bolstered to find other avenues to bring science to youth and the public. As the Internet was growing in everyday use in 1999, she became president of an online company called Space.com, which highlights scientific news for those interested in space. After 15 months with the company, Sally Ride set her sights on a project to specifically encourage girls to seek out careers in science. She put her professorship at UCSD on hold and founded Sally Ride Science in 2001 to develop young girls’ curiosity and encourage their life-long interest in science, engineering, technology, and math. Through space camps, science festivals, books on exciting scientific careers, and innovative classroom materials for teachers, Sally Ride Science continues to inspire young girls, as well as boys, to pursue careers in the field. In addition, Sally Ride co-authored seven books on science education for children. From 2009 to 2012, Sally Ride Science along with NASA initiated another program for the science education for middle school students, GRAIL MoonKAM. Students from around the world select areas on the moon to be photographed by satellites and then the images can be used in the classroom to study the lunar surface. Legacy of Honors and Awards Sally Ride garnered a number of honors and awards throughout her outstanding career. She was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame (1988), the Astronaut Hall of Fame (2003), the California Hall of Fame (2006), and the Aviation Hall of Fame (2007). Twice she received the NASA Space Flight Award. She was also the recipient of the Jefferson Award for Public Service, Lindberg Eagle, the von Braun Award, NCAA’s Theodore Roosevelt Award, and the National Space Grant Distinguished Service Award. Sally Ride Dies Sally Ride died on July 23, 2012, at the age of 61 after a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer. It was only after her death that Ride disclosed to the world that she was a lesbian; in an obituary that she co-wrote, Ride revealed her 27-year relationship with partner Tam O’Shaughnessy. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, left a legacy of science and space exploration for Americans to honor. She also inspired young people, especially girls, across the world to reach for the stars.