Views, Ideas, and Opinions...Oh my!

Graded Assignment #8

2009-10-02T20:30:00.000-07:00

Americans cannot turn on the evening news without seeing coverage of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, one of the most important foreign policy crises today. After September 11, 2001, this mountainous nation became the focus of an American “War on Terror.” Afghanistan was believed to be protecting Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the planners of the terrorist attack. Also, this nation was a hotbed for Islamic extremism due to the government control of the Taliban. President George W. Bush and his coalition created to fight terrorism, asked the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden, but they refused (O’Connor and Sabato 685). In a CNN article from September 21, 2001, President Bush responded by saying, “Freedom and fear are at war. Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence.” (McCaleb)
Despite this noble cause and the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by the end of 2001, American forces are still fighting Taliban members eight years later (O’Connor and Sabato 686). In fact, as recent as last week, five American soldiers were killed while fighting insurgents. Over two hundred soldiers from the United States have died this year alone (Oppel). What does the America have to show for all of this loss? Casualties continue to mount, the Taliban is gaining ground in the Eastern portion of the country, the newly formed Democratic government may be corrupt, and Afghani soldiers seem incapable of protecting the nation without U.S. involvement. The decisions made in the upcoming months by President Obama and his advisors will forever influence the fate of this nation and the safety of the free world.
The President’s National Security Team met recently and shed more light on the disagreements over this foreign policy issue. Some individuals, such as Republicans, take the position that more troops and involvement are needed in this nation. They want to increase the number of soldiers on the ground and the amount of money dedicated to this war. These people believe that the only way to eradicate the Taliban, thereby protecting freedom and democracy in Afghanistan and the world, is to overwhelm their forces with American military strength. In opposition, many government officials believe that an increase in troops is pointless. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, “Even 40,000 more troops don’t give you enough boots on the ground to protect the Afghans if the north and west continue to deteriorate.” (“Obama’s War Council Divided on Afghan Strategy”) This position involves decreasing the number of troops and solely focusing on capturing the leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the country. They also believe that the largest threat to American security lies in Pakistan (Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt). Furthermore, some individuals take an extreme position on this foreign policy issue. Many Americans want to pull out immediately. They want the soldiers to come home, and they no longer care if work is left unfinished.
It is somewhere in the middle of these three ideas that my own position on the war in Afghanistan can be found. I believe that the United States went into the War on Terror with a mistaken impression on what it would be like. Many believed that we could overwhelm the Taliban, squash extremists, and teach the Afghanis democracy without a lengthy commitment or huge number of casualties. From the 1980’s conflict with the Soviets, Afghanis have shown themselves to be adamantly opposed to invaders and quite resilient to the efforts of super powers to root out extremists. How will the United States be any different? As honorable as our intentions were, can we change a nation that has only known oppressive government? Even their democracy is tainted with shady leadership, bought votes, and threats. We may have to face the idea that we have done all the work we can do in Afghanistan. That being said, I believe that increasing the number of troops would be foolish. How is the Afghani government ever going to be stand on its own, if they only rely on the United States to fix their problems? The number of troops should gradually start to decline, pulling out of areas where the local terrorist threat has been mostly eradicated. America should focus on training Afghani police officers and Afghanistan’s soldiers so that they can deal with threats to their nation. Simply pulling out without giving the Afghanistan government time to prepare would send the nation into chaos. Also, it is very likely that when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan that terrorists fled to Pakistan. I do believe that Pakistan allows the growth of al-Qaeda to flourish, but the United States cannot afford another costly war so soon.
The war in Afghanistan is a complex foreign policy issue that there will not be a solution for any time soon. Members of the National Security Council are still debating the best way for the United States to proceed. However, I believe that in our War on Terror, we have forgotten the civilians of Afghanistan. They are the ones who suffer while this conflict occurs in their homeland. That is my main worry; when the United States leaves Afghanistan, as it eventually must, will the new “democratic” government be able to care for its people. Will their lives get any better under a President and Parliament instead of Mullahs and the Taliban?

WORKS CITED
Baker, Peter, and Eric Schmitt. “Several Afghan Strategies, None a Clear Choice.” 30 Sept.
2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/world/asia/01policy.html.
McCaleb, Ian Christopher. “Bush Vows Justice Will Be Done.” CNN.Com. 21 Sept. 2001.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/gen.president.speech/index.html.
“Obama’s War Council Divided on Afghan Strategy.” FOXNews.Com. 1 Oct. 2009.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/01/obamas-war-council-divided-afghan-strategy/
O’ Connor, Karen, and Larry J. Sabato. American Government: Roots and Reform. New York:
Pearson Education, Inc., 2009.
Oppel, Richard A. “5 Americans Killed In Afghanistan.” The New York Times. 25 Sept.
2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/asia/26afghan.html.

Comprehensive Assignment #8

2009-09-30T19:49:00.000-07:00

Viewers would point out that the main theme running through all of my Comprehensive Assignments is government involvement. Most of my cartoons advocate the Federal Government’s involvement to solve problems. From the very beginning, people can note a Federalist view. The cartoons emphasize that the founding generation’s fear at having different, divided states with their own laws was a logical one. This idea continues on as I examined such issues as gun control, healthcare, and laws against homosexual marriage. From the cartoons, a viewer could deduce that I believe that some problems need the more unified, stronger hand of the National Government. State Government’s can get caught up, and begin to solely look out for the interests of their state instead of the well being of the entire nation.
From looking at my cartoons, people would probably be confused by my liberal stance on government and my conservative views on moral issues. However, I believe that some portions of our political ideologies are formed as we go through our lives. As we grow older and become more aware of the nation and world around us, our beliefs about the Federal Government and other issues can shift. Hopefully, a viewer will not assume that I believe that the Federal Government should dominate the American life. There should be a balance. It cannot tyrannize the states, but it also cannot stand idly by and refuse to act when problems threaten to overwhelm the nation.

2009-09-25T19:52:00.000-07:00

There is hardly a more divisive issue among American states than the issue of same sex marriage. Many states consider these unions to be legal, while others refuse. The Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages allowed by other states. This was a major fear of the Federalists during the founding of our country, and is still an area of concern today. Federalists wanted one nation, not thirteen sovereign colonies with their own laws. If this marriage act continues, then more and more laws in the United States will apply in some states but not it others. This will create fifty “nations,” with their own distinct laws and values, causing chaos and disagreements among states to run rampant. In a time when America needs to be strong and united, acts such as this one are weakening the country and highlighting our many differences.

Graded Assignment #7

2009-09-25T19:28:00.000-07:00

From the founding of the United States and the creation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has taken the role as protector of American rights and liberties, mostly through the use of judicial review. In the Federalist Papers, judicial review was defended, stating that by its use the will of the entire American people would be respected. In fact, Federalists were afraid of the strong and often divided will of the states. This group believed that if each state had their own way, America would be composed of thirteen different nations, with their own currencies, denominations, and laws. They believed that in order to create a strong union, the land must have one law. For this reason, I believe that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
In my opinion, homosexuality is morally wrong, and marriage should be between a man and woman. However, I do not think that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to dictate morality in the United States. They deal strictly with the constitutionality of the law. To say that a couple can be legally married in one state but not legally married in another will cause chaos. It follows along the same lines as saying that currency accepted in one state is useless across the border. It divides the nation unnecessarily. The Constitution tries to prevent these divisions in Article Four, Section One by saying that each state must respect the laws of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act goes against this idea. States do not have to recognize other states’ legal unions at all, and can actively discriminate against citizens of other states who participate in these marriages. It would be better for laws dealing with same sex marriages to be applicable to the United States as a whole. In this way, in theory, the will of the entire American people could be respected.
Same sex marriage, without a doubt, is a complicated issue. Many across the United States, despite the fact that surveys show a growing level of comfort with homosexuality, believe that it is a sin. They believe that by accepting these marriages, the culture is allowing morality to degrade. However, what these individuals fail to understand is that when the Supreme Court upholds a person’s right to marry whomever they please, they are at the same time upholding an individual’s right to believe what they want. Christians cannot expect the Supreme Court to outlaw same sex marriage, while their rights to pray and worship remain untouched. Who will set the limits?
Homosexuality is a moral issue, and laws will not stop same sex marriages; changes in the hearts of the American people are the only way to stop it from happening. The Supreme Court has said that it does not give “advisory opinions,” and I believe that this statement can be expanded to also say that the Court does not make value judgments, refusing to choose values for the American people. The Supreme Court cannot look at a case through the lens of personal ethics, but must protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people. It is their job to ensure that all actions of the government do not infringe upon freedom. Allowing a state to discriminate against a same sex couple is infringing on that couple’s right to live how they choose and believe what they will.
In order to protect the sovereignty of the United States, I believe that the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down. Having fifty different states with fifty different standpoints on homosexual marriage encourages dissension and conflict. It emphasizes the differences among citizens of different regions, instead of focusing on the things that unify us and make us all American. This is one of the things that the founding generation feared the most. They wanted unified states, governed by a strong federal government. Furthermore, if a state can outlaw same sex marriage, what is to stop a state from outlawing certain religions or denominations? By protecting an individual’s right to do something that I do not agree with, the Supreme Court is also protecting my right to believe in what I believe in.

Comprehensive Assignment #6

2009-09-18T19:28:00.001-07:00

The two bills on abortion that I read this week both involved government involvement in some degree. The bill originating in the Senate will grant money to organizations that provide information and resources for expectant mothers. Similarly, the bill originating in the House of Representatives wants to regulate abortions in order to ensure that they are not being performed on minors. This is an example of how government regulation and more government involvement in American citizens’ lives can be helpful. These bills are attempting to lessen the use of abortion throughout the United States. Exercising good citizenship, voters need to contact their representatives and let them know how they feel. As Republicans, the Senators and Congressman that I contacted might not be comfortable with this amount of government regulation. However, I have a responsibility to let them know what a good idea I think these bills are. If not, what decisions will they make? Although they have not written me back, I have received confirmation that my message was received. This means that my opinion and the opinion of other “Pro- Government Conservatives” (according to the survey) will be read and possibly impact legislation.

Graded Assignment #6

2009-09-18T18:04:00.000-07:00

For this graded assignment, I looked at two bills dealing with the issue of abortion. The one originating in the House of Representatives, entitled “Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2009,” applied some restrictions to abortions when a minor is the one seeking the procedure. This bill states that if the person is a minor then an organization cannot provide an abortion without parental consent. They must notify the parents that their child is seeking an abortion through certified mail or in person. Parents can intervene and the court will issue an injunction. If a medical facility provides a minor with an abortion, then they will be fined or the doctor will be arrested. These principles no longer apply if the minor’s life is at risk. The bill originating in the Senate is an attempt to practically cut people’s reliance on an abortion. It focuses on providing expectant mothers with health insurance. This bill also encourages education. The Senate plans on providing better information to young mothers about birth defects and infant care. Lastly, the document will grant money to organizations that help women carry their pregnancy to term instead or aborting.

In response to my reading, I contacted my representative in the House and both of South Carolina’s Senators:
1. Congressman Barrett,
I am writing in response to reading the HR 2061 bill or "Parental Notification and Intervention Act of 2009." I whole heartedly agree with this idea! Many parents have no idea that their children are having sex, let alone planning on having an abortion. As a conservative Christian, I am against abortion for any reason. I understand, however, that a large reason for abortions across the United States is that minors are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant. This bill will hopefully force children and parents to talk. What is your opinion of this bill? One of my concerns is that it still provides abortion as an option. Will abortion always be an option in America or are steps being taken to inform people about this moral issue and trying to make it illegal? What can individuals like myself do to advocate the Pro-Life cause?
2. Senator DeMint and Senator Graham,
I am writing in response to the S.270 bill that is supposed to provide programs that reduce the need for an abortion. I am a conservative Christian who is completely against abortion, but I understand that not everyone looks at this as a moral issue. It is encouraging to see that you all are undermining the use of abortion in a practical way. By supplying women with health insurance even when pregnant and important information and resources, you may be saving many children's lives. Since the bill wants to provide women with institutions that give them aid and information, can Christian organization such as The Greenwood Women's Center receive federal funding? They encourage women who do not want their babies to give them up for adoption, and they help supply them with any items they need.

I was greatly encouraged by this citizenship exercise. Not only did it feel good to gain more understanding about the activities of Congress, but it was also very interesting. I had no idea that bills were posted for Americans to read and review. This made me feel more involved in the decisions that my elected representatives are making. If I disagree with a decision that is made, I can contact them and vocalize it. It will not take weeks or months to get a letter through, but because of e-mail, it can be automatically received. After perusing the bills and contacting both my Congressman and my Senators, the idea was further enforced upon me that every vote does count. When we say that our elected representatives work on bills, often Americans picture them writing lengthy documents full of complicate financial terminology. However, here were two short bills that spoke clearly about an issue very important to me: abortion. The people we elect are dealing literally with issues of life and death. Our votes must not be given lightly. Also, I saw the spectrum of issues that people in Congress must deal with, and my respect for them greatly increased, even if they do not answer my e-mail right away!

Comprehensive Assignment #5

2009-09-11T16:19:00.000-07:00

President Obama made a point of explaining, in his speech before Congress, that point of contention between political parties since the beginning has been how much power to give the government. Republicans, historically, have not wanted to give the federal government more power because they are afraid it will oppress the people’s rights. Democrats approve of government expansion to solve problems. They just cannot seem to agree on the issue! However, what these parties fail to understand is that the government needs to have a bit more control over certain issues such as healthcare in order to solve problems. This does not mean that government run, universal healthcare is the answer, but that representatives elected by voters should be willing to allow the federal government to have a say. Possibly, government regulation of insurance companies and government restrictions on how much doctors and hospitals make can help lower the cost of healthcare. The voters, of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, are sinking in today’s economy. Their representatives in the House and Senate should put aside their differences, calm any illogical fears, cross the aisle, and let the federal government try to find ways to solve healthcare problems!

Graded Assignment #5

2009-09-11T16:15:00.000-07:00

As a new voter, I am not familiar with many of the technical aspects of elections, and many American citizens share this dilemma. “Public Funding of Presidential Elections” seeks to inform the public about the issue of where presidential candidates get the money they need to pay for their campaigns. Through the Federal Election Commission, public funding is given to presidential candidates in both the general and primary elections. Also, nominating conventions receive funds for their numerous costs during election year. However, nothing, when it comes to money, is free, and there are many different regulations that come with public funding of candidates.
In a series of acts established by Congress from 1971 to 1984, public funding, which involves the use of dollars voluntarily “checked off” individual’s income tax returns, was legitimized. These acts did the following things: set a limit on campaign spending, made candidates report the amount of contributions they received, and set a limit on money spent by nominating conventions. The Federal Election Commission determined that, during Primary elections, each candidate could spend $10 million plus a “cost of living adjustment,” could only spend $200,000 in each state plus the “cost of living adjustment,” and could not spend more than $50,000 out of their own pocket. In General elections, candidates can spend up to $20 million plus a “cost of living adjustment,” but they cannot receive any private contributions in their campaign. However, they can use private donations for legal and accounting matters. Nominating conventions are required to spend less than $4 million plus “cost of living adjustments,” but they can accept discounts by the state facilities in which the convention is held. As one can clearly see, there are numerous restrictions and loopholes when it comes to public funding. Candidates must be extremely careful because the Federal Election Commission can require them to pay money back if all is not handled properly. In fact, candidates are audited and the reports are available for all voters at the F.E.C’s Public Records Office.
Besides simply looking at F.E.C reports and voting, individuals can participate in campaigns in more direct ways. Individuals can contribute money, but they also can take advantage of the “Independent Expenditure.” An Independent Expenditure involves a person buying newspaper or billboard space, radio or TV time, or setting up a website that clearly supports or complains about a candidate. However, they cannot receive any information from the candidate’s campaign and must clearly state that the advertisement was not paid for by the candidate. Also, people can volunteer or host receptions in support of their favored candidate at their home or church. Through “Public Funding of Presidential Elections,” I was able to get a more in depth look at campaigns and found interesting ways that I can impact elections, besides simply voting.

Graded Assignment #4

2009-09-03T16:15:00.000-07:00

From the moment we wake up, we are bombarded with technology. Televisions, Radios, Laptops, and cell phones keep individuals constantly connected with the world around them. Using these tools, information about what is going on in the nation and world can be read minutes after events occur. Despite this fact, people are still no better informed about current events than they were twenty years ago, according to the article entitled “Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions.”
When measuring the number of people who know world leaders’ names, details of major global events, and other news items, they discovered some interesting facts about which groups are actively viewing the news and retaining the information given there. First, there are more men than women watching the news. Second, older generations are more likely to be interested in politics and world events than young people. Lastly, the amount of education a person has is very influential on the amount of knowledge a person possesses about news events. For example, 63 percent of those who attended college are considered to be in the “high knowledge” group.
Why aren’t people interested? Our borders are shrinking, and Americans are becoming personally connected with issues all over the world. What kind of difference can be made if people do not know what is going on in the world around them? It should not matter whether you are male or female, old or young, or black or white. Every individual should see it as their personal responsibility to be well informed and to try and bring change where they live. Many people are dissatisfied with the way the American government is handling certain issues or the way we are interacting with other nations. If only a few people are interested and involved, how can anything be fixed? Forget “information revolutions,” we need an interest revolution. People should stop being so interested in Hollywood romances and start caring about issues that matter!