Final Week

1.  What new information did you learn from this class?  Think about the content.  What facts are you now aware of?  (1 paragraph)

2.  What new skills did you learn from this class?  (1 paragraph)

3.  What did you learn about yourself from this class?  Think of politics and identity.  Think about your performance as a student.  (1 paragraph)

4.  What would you change about this class?  What didn't work for you?  (1 paragraph)

5.  What knowledge or skill did you obtain from this class, that you will carry with you into future courses?  (2-3 sentences)

6.  What was your favorite topic to write about and why?  (1 paragraph)

From the opinions of gun control in america to capital punishment, this class made me think of things from a different perspective than I usually would have. Since in most of our blog posts we had to describe the other sides opinion and either state at the end why we agreed or disagreed. Sometimes when we got the new assignment for the week i was unsure if i could write that much about it and not be repeating myself the whole time. I actually really learned a few new things from taking this class and got more knowledge to things that I never really would have looked at otherwise.

The skills I have learned from this class also include being able to write about something I know about already but the sources you gave were usually really well written and gave me all the information I needed to help refresh my memory and write a well worded blog post. Writing about things with many sources can be a blessing and a curse as you have to be sure you are citing your sources and only using true information but you can also sometimes write too much about a certain topic and the true point of the argument can be muddied. Overall I learned some new writing skills as well as reading skills and the ability to seek out valuable sources.

While I didn't really specifically learn anything about myself from this class as i had already known I am a very Liberal Democrat, Sometimes there is a certain gray area that exists. Especially with the Death Penalty, I am not entirely against it like many Liberals are, as I sometimes see that the punishment should fit the crime and sometimes people can commit crimes so heinous that lethal injection can be the only answer to end a life that has caused so much pain. There is also a very high number of Republicans out there just not really in New England so reading all of these things about them is very foreign and many of their opinions are unsettling.

The only thing I would change about this class would be the way that the online classroom is set up it can sometimes be overwhelming and confusing with all the links and it would probably be easier if videos or such could be imbedded in the weeks page. As well as when some videos don't work it can be frustrating. Other than that the classroom was very well put together and had a lot of information. The knowledge I learned from this class I will be able to use in future history classes, especially ones that pertain to current events. I previously had taken a AP Government course my senior year of high school and we learned a lot about each of the events that were discussed.History is by far my favorite subject and learning more about it is very exciting to me

Week 11: Crime and Punishment was by far my favorite week that we had, I had previously done many reports and opinion pieces on the Death penalty and whether or not it still should be used. Writing about things that are relevant and current are very important and that is also another reason why I love this topic. People think the world is always black and white when in fact it is quite the opposite For example if someone is completely against the death penalty had a personal interaction with someone facing the death penalty for a wrong they had done them, would their opinions change? Or what if the crime they committed was so terrible and shows no remorse that there was really no true reason for that person to be alive? It all comes down to personal opinion and the way your mind works. There are many different debates going on about the death penalty and I believe there always will be.

Drones

Paragraph 1: Introduction and your opinion statement (thesis)

Paragraph 2: Opposing viewpoint - who would disagree with you and why?

Paragraph 3: Your analysis and conclusion

Should the US use predator drones to take out targets in foreign countries?  Do the pro's outweigh the cons?  Does this set a dangerous tone for other countries that will pursue this technology?  Is it worth it?

I personally feel that predator drones are valid to use to take out targets in foreign countries, as it can be safer than sending human soldiers, and can be much easier to maintain stealth. While it is true that the use of these drones can also cause civilian casualties and instill fear on those in a country where the U.S has drones, I believe that the government is regulating these drones and has only complete professionals operating them. Yes, I believe this sets a dangerous tone for the other countries who want to pursue this technology, as countries with different or more advanced technology can make changes to the drone and cause it to be too dangerous, I do not condone the use of drones recreationally acting as a watchful eye over the American populous, I believe that they are a very useful tool in taking down high profile targets who would be impossible to get otherwise, even though there may be a cost to this method. I believe that it is worth funding to an extent and should be much more regulated and known to the public.

People do not like to be watched without their consent, and we have privacy laws to ensure that the government does not abuse its power and commit unwarranted searches. Though these drones are so small and quiet, it is possible one can be flying overhead and you have no idea, the government could be watching you play ball in the backyard with your son, or listening in on a phone conversation. It is already common knowledge that the government or “the man” keeps tabs on its citizens in the most seemingly innocent ways, such as tracking your daily movements for data collection and the like. These drones are incredibly dangerous and not worth the funding they receive. Other countries will make a more dangerous version of this and use it against us. Drones should be removed completely and taken off the maps, no longer drifting around controlled by someone at a computer screen.

Overall there are many arguments one could use for or against drones, I am honestly in the middle with this whole thing, I think they can be useful to help kill radical terrorists and people who are incredibly dangerous and also hard to find. I would not condone the government to use drones to watch over our everyday lives, as that would seem very unlikely due to the fact that people are really boring and don't really do much. Drones are also incredibly expensive and warrant a lot of funding to produce, while we may not even be using them very often. I believe that drones remain a very useful tool in taking down high profile targets who would be impossible to get otherwise,although there may be a cost to this method. I believe that it is worth funding to a certain extent and should be much more regulated and known to people.

Gun Control

Guns have always had an interesting place in history for Americans, whether you’re thinking of guns in combat or guns in the homes of millions of Americans it cannot be denied that guns are important to our history. In recent news there have been a multitude of school shootings, suicides and deadly assaults that have occurred all including firearms. It is truly a privilege and not a right to own a gun in my opinion, as guns can be used for protection. I am truly on the fence about gun control even with my incredibly liberal views. However in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting I will say this; there is absolutely no reason for anyone outside of the military to own or possess a machine gun or rifle. That amount of excessive capability is what can endanger the lives of a large amount of people.

If Americans weren't able to possess guns legally, then we would all probably die at the hands of illegal gun owners because the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. As with a law that states you may use excessive force on someone who is trying to harm you, especially in you home, in the TheWeek article states "Contrary to what many liberal pundits have written, Florida should not reimpose a 'duty to retreat'... on innocent people who face violent attackers.” which is basically saying that as human beings we are responsible for our own safety and if that means having to kill someone else to save our own lives then so be it. Of course our children should grow up accepting guns and integrating them into our lives so if the moment arises that they must use one they are not overwhelmed or uninformed.

No one can say for sure what would happen if we outlawed guns completely, as the South would probably attempt to secede once again. There are so many facts and pieces of information that were shown and also ones that I have looked at on my own and all I can say is that almost every piece of information I find on gun control to be incredibly biased and never in the middle. One website i found however really spoke to me (mintpressnews.com) Where it is stated “Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem.Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60.” I Completely Agree with this statement. I believe that we should be focusing on more productive things as a nation and to not be so divided.

Climate Change

Climate is defined as the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period of time. The definition of change is, "To make or become different." Climate change is defined as "long-term weather patterns and trends becoming different over an extended period of time.” It all began in the times of the industrial revolution, where coal was burned to produce energy and of course with burning chemicals and heavy metals comes pollution. With the first and second world war, sacrificing the environment for the sake of keeping our troops safe seemed like a fair trade. In the 1970s our reliance on oil became so unbelievably high and people started to realize that maybe there is another way we can power mostly all of our everyday items, especially cars. Over time CO2 is depleting our Ozone and causing our environment to react in an unpleasant manner. Causing dramatic climate change all over the globe, whether that change be “warming” or “cooling” it is with no doubt in my mind that all of these pollutants are causing damage to our environment.

Many big-business oriented Republicans deny climate change and see no harm in dumping hazardous chemical waste into our lakes, rivers and streams. Deforestation is limitless and is merely just gathering supplies to help further our world is what they think, that the world will do fine with us just ruining every single shred of oxygen that exists. It's easy to deny the fact that the way  fracking is regulated currently is damaging to our environment when Exxon is donating money to fund your campaign. How can a republican be environmentally aware while the Corporation with which they own a multitude of stocks, pumps countless harmful toxins into the air while making their precious products such as Iphones and Laptops. For these Republicans, the damage does not exist, that is until they begin seeing the results for themselves, once the forests and rivers around their homes become toxic waste dumps and barren lots, then they will begin to think that maybe, just maybe all of these chemicals may not be good for the environment.

My opinion on all of this is that we need to stop killing our Earth and treating it as a dumping ground and also just as something we can just take and take from. We take everything from this Earth and almost never give anything back. We hear of miles and miles of rain forests being cut down for lumber, but how often do we hear of people planting trees to make up for that? Do any of these people even know how long it takes a tree to reach maturity? I really truly doubt it. “ As a result of our activities, these gases have significantly increased in concentration in the atmosphere (for example carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm [parts per million] to 379 ppm in 2005).”(See Graph) Just looking at this graph makes me uncomfortable. Now onto the very controversial act of fracking, as stated in the TheWeek Article, “The biggest concern is the depletion and contamination of water supplies. Fracking a single well takes an average of 2 million gallons of water a day, much of it drawn from local aquifers. Roughly half the fracking water comes back up the well, rife with chemicals and sometimes carrying traces of radiation from underground rocks.” Now i'm pretty sure we have all seen those videos of those people pouring water out of their tap at home and then, lighting it on fire with ease as the concentration of methane inside the water is incredible. Now this to me is a cause for concern. Fracking is just not worth the risk of polluting Earth’s water and even putting our families and wildlife at risk. Climate change is very, very real and the faster that everyone finally admits they know what's going on, the faster we can all find green ways to produce energy and we could all put our heads together to help reverse some of the damage that has been done.





<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M4jhjt1_eyM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Gay Marriage week 7

            The fight for gay marriage has been an incredibly treacherous one that has caused many people to be shunned from society, from their families, and even caused some to lose their lives. With Massachusetts being the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, with many that followed soon thereafter. In 2015 the Supreme court ruled that same sex marriage was no longer a state by state issue and that same-sex marriage would be legal in every part of the United states. Many feel that homosexual marriage ruins the sanctity of the holy union, while that is exactly the opposite as gay couples want their love to be seen as equal.Also to help back up this decision is that  public support on gay marriage has increased dramatically over the past 20 years, as in 1996 acceptance was around 27 percent, now that number is around 60 percent. Allowing same-sex couples to marry shows incredible progress in our legal system,  being more accepting of different types of lifestyles is a huge leap in the right direction towards tolerance especially in disagreeing states where tolerance is low to nonexistent.
              The original concept of marriage as most people believe, comes from the Christian Bible, and that holy union is to be between a man and a woman, who are marrying to create new life and continue on for generations and generations. Same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because marriage is a state issue, at least until this supreme court decision was finalized it was up to the state and its residents to decide if they wanted to allow gay marriage. We cannot be changing the constitution, as the laws and specifics of marriage have been spelled out perfectly clear, and if we continue to keep changing history as it was written that will induce complete anarchy.
              Pretty much everything I said in the second paragraph was completely painful to type out, it baffles me that people still in 2015 are intolerant of gay people. Homosexuality is present in every species and is seen as a completely natural thing, where homophobia only exists in one species; human. We must stop the intolerance and stop all of the hate that will get us nowhere. Everyone's love deserves to be validated and love between two men or two women is no different, that that of a man and a woman. It doesn't matter if your religion is against it or if your personal values disagree with this decision. Same sex marriage is legal in every state now and there isn't a thing anyone can do to prevent two people from marrying each other based on their sex. This case ruling is incredibly important and helps show how we are becoming a more progressive nation.

     

WEEK 6

The most basic definition of 9/11 would be; “On September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.”(History.com) these planes were all hijacked my members of the extremist militant Islamic group known as Al Qaeda. Since we have the largest military in the world, Al Qaeda didn’t have the power to take our troops down in large quantities, instead they attacked a national landmark to provoke widespread fear and confusion to untimely spread their voices and opinions on how our lives should be lived.

                Many people, especially republicans want to respond to this violence with more violence. Our own people have crossed over and joined such terrorist groups like ISIS, as it is being glorified in many recruiting videos along with propaganda against the U.S government, mixed with angst and hatred for their own homeland; it’s very easy to see how this is quite possible. Right Wingers would say that we actually have not done enough to keep this country safe and must do more, even if that means sacrificing certain things. "It's fair to say that we face more threats, coming at us from more places, involving more individuals than we have at any time since 9/11," (CNN) These such situations would terrify just about anyone. Republicans would argue that while we are safe(ish) today, more could be done if everyone had a gun and the upmost ability to defend themselves.

                9/11 was a worldwide tragedy, many, many lives were lost and it affected just about every Americans life on that day. Everyone knows someone who was affected by that day. We as a country did not overreact to 9/11. As a government however we did. Islamophobia is very present today and it’s an incredible problem. “We must keep Al Qaeda in perspective. It’s a small band of fanatics who have alienated the vast majority of Muslims.” (Yale Global) When extremists only make up an incredibly small population of Muslims. We are safer today, of course we are safe our military is incredibly vast and we have so many precautions set in place now. No one is “winning” the War on Terror, and no one is losing either. It is just draining for both sides physically and mentally, and it needs to stop. I know world peace is a long shot, but I feel as if we would just learn to understand each other in other ways instead of using violence, things could get solved. Though neither side is willing to negotiate or listen to reason, so as of right now we are at a standstill.

Week 4

Citizens United is a conservative not for profit organization that wants people to claim the power back from government. Citizens United believes in limited government and believes that to have a working democracy, the people must be in charge because that might just be what a democracy is. Super PAC’s or a Super Political Action Committee on the other hand gathers funds from various corporate donors and distributes them to a political campaign. Corporate speech is defined as corporations having the same, but not the entirely same amount of legal rights that belong to humans, which includes free speech. With SuperPACS, and giving these huge corporations the same human rights given to citizens,  creates the undeniable truth that our voices are being taken away, or rather incredibly silent compared to those with such a high volume of disposable income.

Campaigns require money, and sometimes the money donated by regular working class citizens isn't enough to completely fund a successful campaign. This is why we have Super PACS, so corporations that agree with the ideals of a candidate can do their part and attribute large funds to help. Luckily in 2010, it was ruled that corporations have no exact limit on how much they can send. So that's very good news for potential presidential candidates who would probably not get much money from private parties. As stated in an article from usnews, “ Super PACs also increase competition. In 2010 Democratic candidates and party committees outspent Republicans by approximately $200 million, but super PACs offset approximately $100 million of that.”. Everybody loves competition, right? So that leaves the best man standing, the one most worthy will take home the gold, survival of the fittest. Giving corporations unlimited free speech would actually also help dispel some lies, as the allowance of saying whatever they wanted would also include bad things and not only the positives. Super PACS are also required to report who their donors are, and cannot directly fund a campaign.

A democracy is supposed to be a system of government by the whole population, typically through elected representatives. Now what if those elected representatives don't have our best interests in mind, and despite the fact that they are supposed to be serving the people, are actually just serving themselves and their own agendas? This is the problem with our system currently, and it is considerably broken and must be fixed. As stated in the video “The story of Citizens United v. FEC” it is stated “ Manufacturers have gut product safety and shipped jobs overseas, and what people really want is being pushed aside because these large corporations have a much larger voice. The amount of money that a corporation can attribute is unlimited. 85% of Americans feel that corporations have too much influence in our democracy.” 85 percent seems like a pretty considerable amount. We must stop giving huge conglomerates priorities over the everyday citizen. These huge corporations do not have our best interests in mind and only have dollar signs in their eyes.

I feel that this case was incredibly biased, in saying that I mean that the people who voted for unlimited amounts of money being spent on campaigns probably had an incredible influence from politicians to pass that, after all who doesn't love free money? However the other end of this in my mind is, if a corporation can donate all of this money to a campaign, what will they expect in return? Obviously they want their man in office but in reality is there  an underlying reason to all of this? I feel as though the way this works is incredibly unfair to most people who aren't incredibly rich. Those everyday people that want to donate money to a candidate they support will not even make a difference even if they donated their entire week's paycheck. Money corrupts so many, and currently our society is broken in countless ways, this just adds to the immense problem of greed we have in society today. We must give power back to the people and away from these heartless corporate machines.