Political Ideology....You probably need one.

  -A political identiy is an interesting thing. It is the very identity we are given that determins what we beleive in, in terms of politics. We all find a political identity a some point in our lives. I sat down and had a converation with someone I greatly admired, to understand what her political ideals meant to not only her, but of those around her.

  On a friday afternoon, I sat down with Angelica Brisk. A Daughter, a Wife, Teacher, Mother and progressive. Angelica was born in Argintena of March 25, 1969. As a child, she moved to the United states. She was raised and is part of Generation X, but she would like people to know that this is not the reason she involved herself into politics. She grew up in Argentina then later emigrated to the United States with her family family. As a teenager she knew that there were things in this world that were wrong and things that needed questioning, like the presidency of both Ronald Reagan And Richard Nixon, the unfair and inequality of people in this country and the high rise of education and tuition.

  In my interview, Angelica was more than ecstatic about someone interviewing her about politics. She wanted me to know that she is a Progressive when it comes to politics. Angelica doesn't focus on anyone issue. She focused on many along with her husband. Issues like heath care and the education system are just the few. They focus on these issues because, they see a need to be vocal about these topics and to fight for them For those who are unaware, a Progressive, while a famous car insurance company, is someone who's has a philosophy for social reform and economical reform, and generally oppose the side of the conservative.

  As i said before, Angelica was heavily influenced by what she saw wrong in the world. She look at what was clearly wrong and sought to help stop it. When the topic of a leader was bought up, she explained to me that when she look for a leader, she looks at the youth. She looks at them as leaders of this world. she looks for those who are motivated, caring and have a heart for change. She has a strong belief that while there are leader like Presidents, she strongly believes that they would be nothing without our support.

  I learned a new respect for Angelica and for politics. Today's youth dose not have the same love for politics as did those before us. We need to stop thinking change can not come. If we allow our procrastination to take over us joining politics, we are then puppets who obey orders. Society has many things wrong with it, and people are angry, but it means nothing if we don't take action. I hope you have all enjoyed this article. If you would like to hear the interview, then just click on the link provided bellow. It's not my best interview, but I hope you will all enjoy the plethora of what Angelica knows. And if your reading thin Angelica, thank you for bringing me into politics. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for you.



These are additional questions I had for Angelic during our interview:
  -How do you feel about politics in today's society?
  -What is you opinion on the idea of media bias and is it something that is true?
  -How dose your family feel about your political view and what are their owns?
  -What is your take on topics like that of the education system?
  -What do you think will happen in the near future for American society?


-Here is the link to the my interview with Angelica
http://soundcloud.com/acquiescee/a-conversation-about-politics

I Said Don't Follow Him

  -There are 3 injustices that have come out of the controversy surrounding the shooting of 16 year old Trayvon Martin. His murder, The Stand Your Ground law and the medias disservice to the people. Last month, this young teen was shot twice in the chest in Inn Standford Community homes by the neighbor hood watch George Zimmerman. In the days that followed, there was a wave of controversy surrounding Mr. Zimmerman's "Good deeds". A nine one police recording was released pointing to possible racism, a federal investigation surrounding the Stanford Police and a Media fair with the incident. So where is the line draw for anyone. It's unclear.


  On the night Trayvon Martin was killed, he had been returning from a 7-11 by George Zimmerman. Now the police did a ,shall we say half ass job with the investigation, and released Mr. Zimmerman on the grounds of the "Stand your ground act". But what is the stand your ground act? Well in September 15 of 2005, according to ,This week news, Florida Legislative passed the Stand your ground act, which allowed any given citizen, with a gun license, to defend themselves from harm if they feel their life is threatened.

  This law is a complete an utter mess. It should not even exist. No one person should be allowed to take justice unless they are a police officer. Why it exists, I have no idea. I suppose Jeb Bush felt emasculated at the idea of not having a gun to deal out "justice". Now the police let Zimmerman go under these conditions, but he has the burden of proof. Videos like The Trayvon Martin 911 call make it difficult to either prove or deny Mr. Zimmerman's innocents. Especially since the audio record clear indicates that Mr. Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin, but his testimony says otherwise.

   People in Florida (including 22 other states) are in  fear of having a gun wielding maniacs walking the streets looking for some sort of confrontation.

   The Stanford police department play a key role in this investigation as they are soon to be under a full federal investigation because of the lack of police and tempering of evidence done for the case. According to a video titled Zimmerman's 911 call with liberal commentary, the police, because of their encouragement for people to give a different testimony, there is, as of today, an investigation(possibly federal) towards the Stanford Police. There are also multiple allegations being made by members of the community and various other groups that racism is playing a game in this gauntlet.

 
  The case has exploded from being a local tragedy to a national tragedy. According to sources like The Week News, the stations covering the case may be taking this overboard. This is not a good thing. In the past with events like the Rodney King trial, the media's watchful eye over the case is causing tension. I use this example because, the excessive coverage of an event can lead to people building up different emotions and ultimately, the cases verdict will determine how people will react because of the build up. Groups like the New Black Panthers Party have now become involved and are calling for blood. As they shown in this news clip on Bill O'Rileys talk show saying "If you killed one of mines, then I should damn kill one of yours".

  If I were reporting on this I would cover it once give the details of the case once there was a sense that the full picture was clear and then wait for the trial to end. I don't want people to take this out of hand. I don't want to see people flipping cars because we've enraged them.  At some point when people are given so much information, that some act out in violence But with 24 hour news coverage and the need for audiences to have updates not only daily, but hourly makes that difficult if not impossible. I would cover a topic like this once I have all the necessary information, but afterwards I would leave it be until the trial. I know a majority of people would disagree with me, but it;s how I feel about media groups of both side over covering issues and I am fully aware that we as people need constant coverage of whats going on in the world. But I would like to say a better method put in place.

  In the end 3 key things are guilty in this case. Zimmerman for taking the law into his own hands, Florida's Gun Law and The media's over blown coverage. The only way justice can be served is if we open our eyes is to see that 1 we need to cover things a little less so that a fire doesn't start. 2 to repeal this gun law, because no one person should try to play "hero" unless it seem necessary and only if they are in their right mind to hold a weapon and 3, to remember that we as people can change the world if we put our minds together. So let us start now and change this law for not just Trayvon Martin, but for the future generation.


  -Sources:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=1iA3rLxncBw -This source was used to discuss the involment of the Black Panther Party.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOpGAOXL5Uk&feature=related -This source was used to discuss Zimmerman's 911 phone call and the policed investigation.

 http://theweek.com/article/index/225909/trayvon-martins-death-should-florida-repeal-its-dangerous-stand-your-ground-gun-law -This source was used to discuss the "Stand Your Ground Law".

'Cause The United States Is A Back Door Man.

  -"The war in Afghanistan is complete bullshit". These words were said by Robert Baer. In a documentary about the several current situations surrounding, what has now been called, the longest war in the United States history. Without a doubt, this is the last thing anyone wishes to hear, that your country is in the longest war in its history. The time has passed since the fateful events of September 11th 2001, when our country was made vulnerable by Osama Bin Landen's terrorist organization. In the 13 years since the war began, we have seen the loss of thousands of young men and women (both soldiers and civilians), and funding that has become an AWOL situation. So were do we stand? We stand in muck.

  The war in Afghanistan is an utter joke, except jokes are meant to be funny. The war has become a laborious task by the united states to bring in democracy to a war torn country. According to sites like The Week news, the goal, like most wars is to win. But due to the circumstances it has become unclear who is winning this war. There are 2 different sides in the war. The U.S. Soldiers and the Taliban Forces. The U.S. goal is to win or spread democracy and freedom for the people under the control of the Taliban. Of course many argue there have been alternative reasons for invading these nations, for example oil. But the original goal, if there ever was one, has been lost in the chaos of the war. The Taliban is a terrorist organized by religious extremist, who ultimate goal is to reign chaos onto those who do not follow their ideals and beliefs.

  For the 100 years the US has always prioritized funding for its military, but the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan represent an astronomical new record in the amount of money we are willing to spend per soldier. There has been a progressive increase in the cost of war. In 11 years, the money sunk into these battles has been staggering. To place a 1 U.S. Troop in Iraq cost a total 2 million dollars.There are roughly 30 soldiers in a troop. The expenses to fund a solider and troop has doubled from world war 2(when it was originally 50,000 dollars in World War 2.)

  It takes 2 million extra dollars that fund the war(not to mention the billion or so dollars it takes to fund weaponry and protection. In the Documentary  Rethinking Afghanistan, it argues that we as people need to know just how much money is being sunk int to the war. Soldiers like SSG Christopher Bentley, says that there is a huge waste of money being spent to fund equipment like barriers that could be made by local people. Government organization like the Pentagon have said that they have lost sight of the cost of the war.


War never changes in the eyes of those who are no a part of it. The U.S. has sunk billions of dollars into a war, when that money could be used to fund domestic programs like after schools programs, schools or even medical research. The nation has been in a debt crisis for some time now, but it doesn't help that 2 million dollars a day are being spent in a war. the casualties grow every day. From hundred's to thousands, someones son or daughter is dying for a lost cause. We are left with questions like why are we here? Why do these people hate us? They hate us, because our country has grow to hate them for nothing.

The nations of Iraq and Afghanistan have felt the greatest loss from either side. The Citizen of both these nations feel this great animosity from the U.S. They have lost the lives of children, mothers and family before there very eyes. They live in a war that dose not seem to end. They become desperate to the point that we have made them into the very enemy we struggle to fight. But why do they side with the enemy? We Push them to become the enemy out of desperation

  We are left with a question. A question we are asked during any war. Can we win it. No we can not. With massive debt, funding going down the toilet and people beginning to open their eyes. We lost this war when the lives of the innocent were being taken. If we were to win, victory would look a little something like this. I don't know what its takes to win the war. What need to be done is to rebuild what has been destroyed. We need to find a better tomorrow to built a better future.


Sources:http://theweek.com/article/index/88432/briefing-americas-other-war -I used this source to talk about the economic situation.

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4teO_XDtkLk&feature=relmfu  -I used this source to discuses the the funding put into the separate military sources.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7384906n&tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.0  -I used this source to discuss the moral of the war and the loss.

I Am The Egg Man, We Are The Egg Men, And I Am The Other Wes Moore?

-Fate. Just the mere mentioning of this word conjure up memories of masterpieces involving love, lost, the past, the present and the future. But what is fate? The idea of fate, as it stands, is an outcome, per say. The events in our live, which we follow, have in outcome skewing into different tangent. Now what if you, and one other person whom you don't know and have never met, shared the same name, but two order nary different lives? That was the story of Wes Moore....at least one if the story's. Both Wes Moores grew up in the ghetto's of intercity Washington D.C. Both had single parent, live circumstances and lives. But they are not so so different.

  As bizarre as this may, or may not sound, both of these Wes Moore's are partially the same side of a coin. Let me explain. They both grew up in the intercity ghetto of Washington D.C. in the same neighbor hood, but were completely unaware of it. Regardless of their separate lives, they both lead, predominately, the same lives. Both hung out in the neighbor hood socializing  with kids their own age. They both had single parents who raised them and a small family.




  For our protagonist Wes Moore, the turning point for his actions came much too late. He had already full life of being a criminal. From robbery to murder. At points when he wanted to turn his life around,  according to the book  he only knew this life and no other.

 For the non institutionalization Wes Moore, the story revolves around his life has had several turning points that severely affected him as a young child. In the beginning of the book, the death of his father before his very eyes greeted to the reader. Wes Moore said this deeply affected him in essence because since his he was so young. Although never truly had an opportunity to meet his father which would be seemingly the father figure he searched for. Until he was unwillingly sent to  Military school by his Mother at a very young age, he was on the boarder line of living the same life as our protagonist Wes Moore.






  The love of a parent shows no bounds. For both Wes Moore's, their mothers were the predominate  figures in their lively hood. For the non institutionalization Wes Moore, his mother's presence and stern determination to keep him as a civil member to society had a profound effect on him, because she kept a role as a parent. When he did something wrong, she punished and when he was behaving she nurtured him. She took the equation of being a friend away, and stayed a mother.


  Protagonist Wes Moore had a drastically different family environment. His mother, while present, was always kind, generous and loving to Wes Moore, but she played a role more of a friend and less of a mother, not to demean her in anyway. But when Wes Moore was in some sort of trouble, she tended to turn the other cheek. Refusing to believe that here Son was becoming just like his criminal older brother. His father, living in a different area, absent and an alcoholic never played the role of a father. For all that is said and done, his brother Tony was the catalyst in Wes Moore's life a crime. Influencing him from a very young age and without a father, Wes Moore developed, in my opinion, developed a need to have a father figure in his life and Tony was it.


  
 The thing that is difficult to explain is the human behavior aspect of the story. Without a doubt it teaches the reader the importance of a family and structural environment For me it goes something like this. A mirror can tell you whatever you want it too. If you place a mirror of yourself in front of you, with your home behind you, it can spell a thousand word of you future. The similarities between the two Wes Moores spans continuously from environment to home life. Patterns like this can be found in every person depending on the who, what and where.

This book was an absolutely joy to read. The thing I loved most about it was that it offered a window into the true meaning of hope. What I mean when I say this is that, even though these men lead two completely different lives and both ended up having incredibly different lives, they still kept hope that they would have their voices heard and that their lives would shape up into becoming something they had wished for. I hope everyone and anyone take the time to read this book and now I leave you with this video relating to the idea of imagination and never giving up hope.                                                

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj-xOkHtHRg This song will just a song, has a powerful message of friendship and growing up.

Play Me Off Superpacs.

  -"Congress Shall Make No Law....Abridging The Freedom Of Speech":The First Amendment. This is the argument that Citizen United made to the Supreme court in their case against FEC. It is a strange time in politics. I say this out of feeling that we are clearly owned by political super powers that dominate capital hill. Today's future men and women, who wish to run for a political office, must go through the process of running, funding and managing their own campaign. What if I were to tell you, that organizations known as superpacs, took all the time and frustration from funding and gave you vast amounts of money? What if I were also to exemplify that because of citizen united v.s FEC, that corporations could fund who they wanted for as much as they wanted. Hard to believe? Well it's true and because of this, corporations are given an unfair advantage over the people.


   Superpacs have an interesting history. P.A.C. is an adverb  and stands for political action committee according to the Week news. The organization was formed in the late 40's, literally designed to raise and spend money on various political campaigns varying from five thousand dollars for the candidate and 50,000 for the party they support. Thankfully in 1972, the FEC(Federal Election Commission) had established certain ground rules for those who were going to fund a party member. It required things like donors donating only $100, banned union, corporations and banks. And Party's had to disclose who was funding to allow transparency. In the earlier part of 2000, the supreme court took a case know as Citizen United V.s FEC. Citizen united had argued that they were a people. Also, they argued that their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech was being violated. They inevitably won with a 5 to 1 ruling in their favor

   It bring up an interesting topic. Now because these organizations can fund any candidate with as much money as they want, they have opened the flood gates for organization and corporations to gain an upper hand in the political campaigns. Here is how it works according to the video  The Story of Citizens United. No because the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Citizen United, it also allowed Corporations to fund and advertise for and against Politicians of their choosing. One thing needs to be made clear. a corporation is not a person Mitt Romney. A corporation is a business. A machine. If the individuals of  the Company were to support a political campaign on their own , then that would be a person (not sure). With all of this, it is almost an unfair advantage for both parties. Besides aren't these elections meant to be about the people choosing leaders that will serve their interests?


   No. Corporations have an unfair advantage compared to as the people because they have vast amounts of money, they have an overarching need to make profit their number one priority (need to add at least one more reason). Corporations can fund law maker in to getting what they want like a spoiled child. For example, oil companies have gotten politicians to block  environmental laws. They have violated acts like the McCain Feingold act, which presents smear advertisements for occurring 4 months before an election The problem is not government, it is the Corporations who are the problem. 85% of this country, at this point is fed up with corporations have this vast amount of power over who wins elections. So what can we do? In the video on the top left, is a video of Nancy Pelosi arguing that we are essentially handing this country over to corporation's. We need to  fight back by supporting act like the disclose act, that allow the people to know what corporation is funding who  and with how much. Taking in to capital hill and arguing that a corporation is a machine and not a people. We need to be the red white and blue. Not the red, white and screwed.

Sources:

  http://theweek.com/article/index/223867/how-deep-pocketed-super-pacs-became-shadow-campaigns : I used this source to explain superpacs funding.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY :I used this source to explain the unfair advantage that corporations have over the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZcchO79HsI : I used this source to describe the election process being run by corporations.

You do the crime, you get the chair....wait what?

-"Sometimes the criminal Justice system gets it wrong." Harriot Herman. She said this during a panel for the BBC on capital punishment.  It seems a bit strange to hear this. That our justice system can sometimes miss judge a case like Troy Davis. In today's society, there are over 93 countries that practice the justice of Capital Punishment on those who have committed unforgivable offenses. In countries like Afghanistan, even young children who commit small crimes are executed. Since 1978, the amount of support that capital punishment has decreased by 19 percent. Even so the measure continues. Those who support it.... Those who don't....There are those who support Capital Punishment and those who don't. It is an extreme form of punishment that is economically costly. Also, if you can tell from the top left image, the justice system has blood on it's hands as well. So what exactly should you believe in?

  Capital Punishment does not have an exact history or specific place of origin. In most countries and society's, the form of Capital Punishment, or commonly known as the death penalty, has been used in cultures and societies for thousands of years as a means of executing those who have committed unlawful activities. Methods like the chopping of the head, hanging, firing squad, electric chair and lethal injection, just to name a few, have been evils made to combat crime. It has been an evil that has been viewed to many, according to the week news, as a proportional punishment. But what does this mean exactly? Well it is closely related to the biblical term, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Or Karma. What you have done, whether good or bad, will be returned to you in some form.

In terms of economic it has taken a very hefty toll.Economically it has taken a chunk of the budget in states who chose to use the death penalty. In states like California, the annual cost for Capital Punishment systems are at least $308 million a year and the average cost for a lethal injection is $86 per shot. And with all that money spent, what is gained? Morally, it has not proven a thing. The fact that we take lives to bring comfort to another is not morally just. Taking a violent life does not create peace. It only begets violence. At the same time, our public safety is key to protect society.

   According to The Amnesty International project, the death penalty has very little effect on outside society. What this means is that if an individual is executed for murder, and the idea of the death penalty is to exemplify a point, it fails to do so. The supporters of capital punishment argue that it sets an example for future offenders. Conservatives like Priti Vatel argue that capital punishment in itself is the only form of justice preventing criminals like rapists from returning to the streets. But the Amnesty United Project argues the death penalty does not put a strain on crime or decrease it.

  The system of capital punishment has taken a great toll on who we are as a country and as a people. this point is bought up primarily due to the execution of an innocent inmate who was wrongfully accused and put to death. Troy Davis was convicted of murder in 1989, for the murder of an off duty police officer. During most of the 1990's, he gained favorable support from the public for his release, for 64 to 80%, he was inevitably executed. Several years later, the witness testimony's that landed him in prison, later say that they were persuaded into testifying against Davis.

 This fact brings us to an important question. In knowing what we know now, should the death penalty be banned? Or is it an appropriate tool to deter violence? The answer for both is no. The death penalty has not proven to ease a crime wave in any form in the past 20 or so years. As a matter of fact 153 have since then banned capital punishment, claiming it is a method that rips away our moral character. If there is one thing life has taught me, killing someone else dose not mean justice. If anything the death penalty is just a way for countries to get away with murder on a massive scale. You may have notice the image with a famous phrase from the Sex Pistols saying No Future. In truth, if we don't change our way of punishment, then we have no future as a civilized society.


Sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMho2cP1NE&feature=player_embedded: Jeremy Irons Interview, facts used were, moral choice and other nations methods.


http://theweek.com/article/index/219630/troy-davis-death-the-end-of-capital-punishment: Troy Davis summary, facts used were of his trial, his support and the review of his case.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5aodBfdFTA: Debating the death penalty, facts used were opinions of Priti Vatel and Harriet Herman.

Houston, We Have A Problem. It's A Little Too Hot.

-A name alone can cause an uproar given the proper situation. Names like Hitler, Osama, and Bush bring to mind the malign histories and less than reputable pasts. Now here is a name that most of our nation, at this point should be familiar are with. Global warming. What is global warming. Today's media groups whether Liberal or Conservatives wage social wars between one another due to the theory of "the earth warming up." As early as the 1880's and as recently as 2012, scientists have begun to notice an alarming rise in Global (land and oceanic environments) temperatures. Evidently millions are on an uncertain terms with the issue of Global Warming. Scientist and engineers are coming together and discovering new alternative of energies. But in the end the general public is still unclear what this all means.

  In today's energy market, the most conventional forms of energy are narrowed down to Fossil Fuels; Oil, Coal, and a new energy source, Natural gas. Oil which the U.S. imports from primarily Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Fossil Fuels which are the burning of microorganisms and dead organism, such as animals. Coal, which is mined from areas of the United States and Natural gas which is hidden deep in geological earth. The alarming rise in carbon dioxide has reached it's highest rate in 20 years, but in bring up an interesting point. Scientist argue that the new levels have become a hazard and some scientist like Roy W. Spencer argue that here are alternative motives to Global Warming. But in order to understand the arguments, we first need to know what exactly Global Warming is.

                               What is Global Warming?

  Really what is Global Warming? According to sites like Wikapedia Global Warming was coined to describe the earth's atmosphere and Ocean levels rising due to rising temperatures. But you may think so what, the earth is getting a little hotter. The issue is that "YES THE EARTH IS GETTING HOTTER"!!!! According to The New York Times, emissions causing Global warming or Co2 are caused by primarily coal and oil. Political uproar has been called about this. Many Politicians like Congress Woman Michelle Bochman argue that Co2 is a product of nature.(comment about Co2) Watch the video bellow.

 With the damage that is being brought on by using the traditional methods, power companies are trying to find brand new ways to produce energy. The most recent one involes using Natural Gas. The gas is hidden in pocket in the geological earth(usualy underneath towns) The methods in which is gas is captures is called Fracking, and no, not the Battle Star Gallatica kind.

   According to the BBC documentary, Fracking 101, fracking  involves drilling deep into the earths surface and using the water in the pipeline that breaks these pocket and relases the gas into the water along with added chemicals. It sound like a miracle product. Offering a new efficient form of energy and creating new job opportunities for stuggiling homes and families. The fact is that natural gas is unethical. As you can see from the NBC news report, a Colorado Husband and Wife's tap water is bursting into flames. But why? For the simple reason that "Fracking is Fracking dangerous. Here are the facts.

• The chemicals used to abstract the gas come from a water supply that has harmful chemicals in it. 
• The gas begins to migrate to other sources, like town water supplies, causeing the water to become contaminated by methane gas. 
• EPA investigaions could not come under way because of funding, and federal investigations are just beging. 
• In 2005 when George W. Bush signed for companies to begin extracting gas, he also signed that gas companies did not have to commply with the "Safe Water Drinking Act."

  The cost of the expenses in terms of the types of energy usage fluctuates in the millions. But the cost of environmental damage can be permanent. As the events of the BP oil spill have shown, the effects of drilling and mining for energy can leave permanent damages to our environment. But can we establish alternetives forms of energy usage? According to Roy W. Spencer, it is actually much more expensive and the energy made from renewable energy come up for only 8% of the nation energy.(Such as Windmills and Watermills)

  In the end, we are left with one question. Is global warming man made? Yes. Co2, while it is a natural product of nature, our coal and oil usage have multiplied the amount of carbon dioxide in 2010, according to the week news. Do we have a solution? Well according to Roy W. Spencer, we can not change our method in a snap. The amount of energy needed to use the energy we use today with coal is not sufficient and only makes up 8% of our nation. So what can we do, well for now, we can only do small thing. Unplugging electronics when not in use, walking instead of driving and just keep thinking of the bigger picture.


Sources:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNk--ZXoGVY

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJj-1jNOxE&feature=player_embedded