Final Post

This course has taught me many things that have helped me in my daily life in making my decisions. I learned about propaganda and how media never gets the full story of any incident. They cut information out of stories to make them more interesting. This usually happens when a sports team of the area loses they would find some type of excuse to make the people that watch the news feel better. I also learned how the government is able to do what ever they want. Like put drones up in the sky and supposedly only spy when there’s any crime being done. The truth is that they can use the drones any time they want if they think you may be a suspect of any crime.

New skills that I learned in this class would be determining media bias. I also learned how to organize my writing and always add lots of facts to support my beliefs. Writing the weekly blog helped me to improve my organization with my writing. I also learned how to always see the opposing side of a argument and how it improves your argument because you can counter arguments. Reading articles from The Week helped me see both sides of the arguments and to never take a side without seeing all the facts.

I learned many things about my self especially with politics. I learned that I always chose the side of the person who seemed nice I never looked for facts I always believed anything they said. Since I took this class now I’m actually wise with politics I know what’s going on when I see the news and I’m always interested. Before I wouldn't care even though those decisions that the president makes will affect me in the future. I also learned that I’m a good writer only with subjects or discussion that I’m interested in and if I’m not interested my argument would be weak.

I would change only a few things and it would be adding pictures to the blogs because at time I would forget to add the pictures to the blog. Also I didn’t like the discussion board only because I didn’t like responding to other peoples answers because I wasn’t sure if they would get offended or get mad because I went against their answer. Also some better topics would have made the class experience better for me because some of the topics weren’t interesting to me. Other than those things, I loved the class.

A skill that I learn from this course that I will carry on into my education would be always staying in touch with the news and what goes on with the government changes.

My favorite Topic was Eye on the Sky the Rise of the Drones because I found it so interesting that the government is taking that step. It made me wonder all the problems those drones would bring with them if the wrong person had control of them. If the government saw you as a suspect they can put a drone to show your ever move. It would affect all of us and our privacy.

The Dangers of Drones

Drone use has become more prominent than ever in the last 8 years in the U.S.. The use of drones peaked during the Obama's first term of office, it's highest during 2010. Each type of drone has it's own purpose. Attack drones have been mainly used to eliminate terrorist figures, and spy drones are used for numerous purposes. Although the use of drones is kept secret from citizens for the most part, with what we do know many people would come to the conclusion that the use of drones is immoral and takes the easy way out by looking at only the short term goals.

Those in support of using drones do so for many reasons. A big pro for drones is that there is no loss of ground soldier's lives because drones are operated by remote controls here on the homeland. If there is no soldiers being sent into the field, we save thousands of lives and the "bad guys" who are deemed terrorists are taken out without a drop of U.S. blood spilled. Another advantage to using drones is that we don't need as many soldiers in the army.It makes it more logical to downsize the Army and Marine Corps. The government would save 487 billion.

The use of drone technology is immoral because in the case of spy drones, it invades privacy. Even people who aren't criminals do things they may not want to be on camera. We all have those days where we check our armpits in case we forgot deodorant or other embarrassing things that shouldn't be filmed. Attack drones are also immoral because of the amount of civilian casualties, the people who make the final decision to kill, and the fact that the U.S. attacks these countries without any declaration of war. For every one "terrorist" killed, there is one civilian killed. It is against the rules of war to attack a country without explaining or declaring war. The budget cuts are also a con because there will be tons of soldiers without jobs.

Trouble in Syria

Trouble in Syria

The uprisings during the Arab springs in Egypt and Libya were largely successful, Syria seems to be unsuccessful. There are many reasons, but the first is that many nations don't want to get involved. Although nearby countries are uncomfortable because the don't want refugees pouring through their borders, the US and UN seem to have their hands tied. Do these rebels deserve help? And from who?

The US doesn't want to get involved for a few reasons. The first is that we don't want to be stuck in the middle of another middle eastern conflict. We are finishing up in Iraq and we're still involved in Afghanistan, so there's no need to be heroic, we have nothing to prove. We also don't want to get involved in a revolution that the outcome isn't any clearer with our involvement than without. Our involvement in the Syrian uprising still makes a positive outcome an "if." That certainly doesn't make the risk of US lives worth it. The US and also the UN are held back by the interests of Russia and China. The UN can't make any real commitments with two large countries opposed, and the US doesn't want to step on their toes because we haven't been great friends with either country and they are both large world powers.

Although it wasn't clear at first, the Free Syrian Rebels are extremely violent and may not be able to put a successful government in place. In the US, it must bring back memories of the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem. The US involvement made things worse for our country by getting us sucked into a long unsuccessful war. Obama administration isn't looking to repeat history. The choice of how to respond or even if the US or UN should respond comes down to one question: which is the lesser evil? Would it be better to help rebels who, if they are successful, may be as repressive as the government in power now, or to let things play out on their own? The rebels have been reported to be responsible for civilian deaths, The difference between these Syrian rebels and those of Egypt and Libya is that the Syrians aren't innocent or helpless. They are becoming exactly what they are fighting against.

No other country should be involved in this conflict. When the rebels started taking civilian lives as collateral damage it became a bad idea for others to get involved. It almost made it more private, like a friend's family problems, and one really doesn't want to get involved. It also made the rebels look stronger almost as if they don't need the help. The fact that they are also as corrupted and immoral as their government turned away many countries because it would not improve any of the current issues. Syria and it's rebels will have to settle this one on it's own. Sources : http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/when-the-syrian-rebels-lose-their-halo/254842/ http://theweek.com/article/index/225817/are-syrian-rebels-just-as-cruel-as-assads-military http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9156307/Human-Rights-Watch-study-details-torture-and-executions-by-Syrian-rebels.html

Election of 2012 we have president Obama trying to get reelected and Mitt Romney running against him. Barack Obama represents the democrats and Mitt Romney represents the Republican side both sides are really different in their beliefs but they both have somewhat of the same goals and is to help the economy. President Obama believes that people with bigger incomes should get taxed more than people that have lower income. Mitt Romney believes that we shouldn’t waste money on things we don’t need like companies that don’t make enough money and that companies should be able to do whatever they want.

Mitt Romney lost the election in November 6, 2012 to Barack Obama for multiple reasons. Mitt Romney only focus on the upper class and how their tax cuts would be great and how he would put money in business and throw away the business that weren’t helping the economy. He also spoke about helping the economy. Romney made it clear early on that he didn’t have a clue about the importance of a sound dollar to economic growth. His original 59-point economic plan contained 671 words, and not one of them was the word dollar. The 5-point economic plan that Romney trotted out late in the campaign contained 184 words, and none them was “dollar”. And, while Romney said during the campaign that he would replace Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, he never said with whom, or to what end.

Barack Obama won the 2012 elections by a lot. Barack Obama won re-election handily over Mitt Romney with 303 electoral votes, well more than the 270 electoral votes needed. The Democratic candidate believes in “hope and change" while the republican believe in the big business in the trenches, in one state after another. Obama had full support by the women which helped him a lot 55 percent of women voted for Obama, while only 44 percent voted for Mitt Romney. Men preferred Romney by a margin of 52 to 45 percent, and women made up about 54 percent of the electorate. In total, the gender gap on Tuesday added up to 18 percent -- a significantly wider margin than the 12-point gender gap in the 2008 election.

It’s good for the United States because it takes many years to fix the economy it doesn’t just happen overnight. The election was a drag with all those commercials I feel like there was things said that shouldn't have been said. It was a dirty election all they did was say bad stuff about each other and lie. They sounded like children fighting he said this but he said that. The election doesn't affect the world at all we are no longer the most powerful nation in the world-China is-so it really doesn’t matter to the world who our president is.

Gun control and gun violence are major issues in this country. With the number of shootings rising, especially school shootings; we start to question if it is the rare occasion or something common. Who is to blame for people being inappropriate with their guns, the people or the law that allows them to carry the gun? Many gun owners are responsible with their guns so why punish the few along with the many? Or is it better to not take the risk with anyone at all? Access to guns now is easier than ever before too. Would putting a ban on guns actually be able to control them, or would the gun ban be a complete fail like the prohibition?

I personally think that there are too many people that own guns in the United States. All these guns will just bring us all problems the violence will increase more people would get shot for dumb reasons. It doesn't matter how unsaved you feel you shouldn't have a gun in a church or in a bar. Maybe if you feel like is unsaved to go to the bar without a gun you shouldn't be out to the bar. For example the shooting that happened in Colorado which happened in July 20, 2012 there were 12 people that were killed and 38 injured. Having a gun wasn't a God given right therefore people shouldn't use that in their arguments because there wrong.

The solution to all this madness would be to ban guns from citizens that have any type of record or any mental illnesses. They should go through a long process to have the gun and the gun shouldn't be able to leave the house because if it does they would get arrested. Gun owners should also be required to take a gun training class to teach them gun control and gun safety. This would bring down the violence and probably make people feel safer that the waiter they just yelled at isn't going to shoot them or attempt to kill them.It would also make it easier for cops because there would be less shootings and less cops dying in action because of a gang shooting or other gun related situation. The more rules the government puts on guns the less violence there would be.

9/11 and its aftermath

What happened on 9/11 was something terrible that, when it happened, was unimaginable to the American people. 19 members the all-Qaeda group hijacked 4 planes in a coordinated attack. Flights 11 and 175 struck the ETC towers in New York city. Flights 77 and 93 were aimed for the Pentagon in Washington DC. Flight 77 did strike the Pentagon, but flight 93 was set off course by defiant passenger s and hit a field in Pennsylvania. These attacks were funded and organized by Osama bin Laden and his networks. 2977 prophesied in the attacks. In the immediate few tweaks after the attacks, Americans were living in complete fear. That fear didn't weaken us though. It united us under one common enemy. The United States handled the situation in the best way they could have. I don't agree with everything that they do to protect our country but some people don't worry about the foreign affairs of our country because it doesn't matter as long as they feel safe. They feel as though as long as they feel safe the government's choices are unimportant. After their safety was taken away from them, it must have been hard for them to decide who to trust. 10 years after 9/11 we are much safer than we were in the past. We have better technology to protect us and are more knowledgeable about the dangers out there. I don't think the US overreacted to to 9/11 whatsoever. The country was in grave danger and we needed as much protection that we could get.

Citizens United Decision

More money has been spent on the 2012 election than any other election in history. Ever. This is due to the ruling of the Citizens United case in 2010. Citizens United argued that corporations and unions should be able to have freedom of speech to financially support candidates in elections. Then, the super PACs were formed, making the power of corporations limitless. The only real restriction placed on these corporations is that they cannot directly associate with candidates. Spending of outside groups has increased by 1600% between the 2008 and 2012 elections. Clearly, the new law is a game-changer. Conservatives love this new policy. Since conservatives already support big businesses, they are now widely backed by these businesses. More than $38 million dollars has already been spent on Republicans by these corporations. Conservatives use the reason that letting more people participate promotes democracy. They view the corporations as citizens with the same Constitutional rights so they must deserve free speech. Liberals see corporate free speech as a threat to the people. Now those who have more money will have more influence over the election. They disagree that it doesn't promote democracy at all. The decision allows those with money to promote any candidate in a popular light and put whatever words in their mouth that the corporation chooses. A total of 85% of the people feel that corporations have too much power and influence in our democracy. Corporations having a greater influence in our democracy makes it harder for individual people to have their voices heard. The people don't agree with corporations having free speech, with 62% of the public opposed to the decision. The Citizens United decision was a huge mistake. The Supreme Court put the power of presidential elections in the hands of rich corporations who will pay to put into office whichever candidate will pass laws to ensure a greater free market and cut taxes on big corporations. These are largely conservative views that envelope the goals of large corporations. This means Republicans are most likely getting more support from outside sources than Democrats are. It sounds like a partnership forming between Republicans and corporations. Political power is now determined by who has the deepest pockets essentially. For example, Mitt Romney's super PAC had enough power to cause great detriment to Newt Gingrich's poll lead in Iowa. The middle and lower classes will pretty much be ignored if political power continues to swing in this direction.