Week 8

11/13/2013

Participation: Each week students are required to make one substantive post and one response to another student on the class blog (professorcrain.org) under DeAnza, Poli 1 & the specific week. Each student must post by Wednesday of that week and reply to their classmates by Friday of each week.

These posts should highlight one of the three prompts below:

1) summary of lecture with critical thinking questions (150 words)

2) media (newspaper articles or relevant videos) and a 150 word description of its relevancy to the reading and/or lecture (cover two major ideas)

3) 2-3-minute video logs on your perspectives in the knowledge gained from lecture /reading material

UPCOMING CAMPUS EVENTS

On Wednesday Nov. 20th Chris Lepe, campaigner with Transform California, will talk about local campaigns to bring transportation justice to Santa Clara County. 12:30-2:00 in L84

Our last speaker on Nov. 27th will be Rabiah Khalid, policy advocate with Asian Americans for Community Involvement, who will be discussing the campaign to implement the Affordable Care Act in Santa Clara County.
12:30-2:00 in L84

Monday – Veterans Day
Tuesday – Review of Community Based Research Projects & Different types of Activism in the Bay Area
Wednesday – Social Action and Politics in the Bay Area & US Military Interventions
Brief History of Military Interventions (10 examples) WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE
Thursday –"Big Brother" and surveillance in our lives - The Case of Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden 1
NSA Program
Wikileaks

Click on add comments to leave your posts and reply to others.

117 Comments

Angela Paolella

11/13/2013 02:10:03 am

So today in class we discussed our past military and nonmilitary interventions in foreign countries, nonmilitary action being aid and trade. Although we discussed multiple examples, I would like to focus on Syria which led me to read a rather interesting article(http://www.firstpost.com/world/5-reasons-why-the-us-wont-go-to-war-with-syria-1087359.html). As you can probably guess from the url, the article sums up all the reasons we won't go to war with Syria into five simple points, the most notable being- one, "unreliable and unlikely allies" and two, "no politician wants another 'Iraq vote' on his record. was". For the first point, we discussed the fact that Russia, a major arms dealer, would lose a client if military action was taken; for the second, we are saving face- few approve of what we did in the middle east, do we dare try it again with Syria? It was brought up during class today that we could not think of a single instance where the United States acted solely out of the goodness of the people and that was definitely reiterated by the article. This leads us into our many critical questions- the United States is in debt, we can all agree on that, but should still take action overseas? When so many counties are violating human rights, including ourselves, how do we choose which countries to save and which to forgo? Do we leave China alone or do intervene? Syria and so on?

Matias Chapman

11/13/2013 06:40:04 am

I don't think we should get ourselves in any more messes, We have fought more wars than I can count on one hand within the past century. We ought to focus on our internal issues, straighten out the wrinkles that lead to massive regional disenfranchisement and human rights violations. We must save ourselves first, and once we become the ideal model for other countries to strive to become, then we can go international once more and support other nations' development and/or reparations.

Ariana Ortega

11/14/2013 08:52:49 am

Hey Angela,
I think the United States should just keep their noses out of other countries and should just focus on our own issues at home. We should focus on our own debt and not foreign affairs. We should be focusing on what we need to for us first then help out the rest of the world. If another country needs our help they should ask, instead of us sticking our noses where they do not need to be at. That is how we mostly get into our wars.

Leyla Mousli

11/20/2013 03:44:19 pm

I somewhat disagree with what you are saying Ariana. From what I understand, you are saying that we should basically disregard what is going on around us and focus on our debt problems? I think that there are much more bigger problems in the world, like genocides, that our debt issues. If we see another country killing its own people, like Syria, I think it's extremely immoral to to basically ignore it and try and pay off our debt. I think it every developed countries duty to help out the less fortunate countries.

Jonathan Garcia

11/22/2013 06:39:54 am

I agree.we should not intervene.we have enough problems as is.we should balance our budgets.it sinteresting how other countriea have their hands on our debt.if they pay some of our debt.we owe them somehow

melissa bui

11/14/2013 10:17:57 am

Hi Angela! I would agree with everyone else’s comment that I think the U.S.A should leave China, Syria and every countries alone. We have problems of our own that we haven’t yet solved and we want to go intervene with other countries? I think if the U.S.A were to intervene with other countries, it would cause us to be more in debt with the war fee with everything that will cost us to go in war. Personally for me , I never understand the meaning behind wars but I for sure don’t think that we should intervene with China considering China does provide half our supply here in the U.S.A. I don’t understand what’s so unique about going into war with another country but I do understand that if the U.S.A was planning to go into war with another county right now , it’ll probably led us to a dead end and a really bad economic crisis once again .

Terrence Chantengco

11/15/2013 10:22:38 am

In my opinion, I don't think we shouldn't try to intervene into any more international conflicts. We already have many issues in the U.S. We should be concentrating on our own state and not worry about the others because we will just create more problems with other countries and ourselves.

Angela Paolella

11/15/2013 11:40:54 am

Thanks for all the great responses, you all brought up really interesting points. I must say I agree with all of you on your stance regarding military intervention. I say we mind our own business- there is plenty of room for improvement on our own soil, not to mention the amount of money we waste on foreign interventions, Vietnam anyone?

Chantel Luu

11/15/2013 12:59:20 pm

The military intervention we avoided with Syria was largely a result of Secretary of State John Kerry's blunder. War in the Middle East has been ongoing throughout the last decade and I would agree that politicians see supporting such an effort as political suicide. The United States is in debt, but the limitations our debt puts on military and humanitarian action is small. If you view world as a realist, America decisively decided that military intervention in Syria would have been against our best interests. But I think that is an oversimplification of a complex system. I think the use of aid in Pakistan over a number of years has created a budgetary dependency. While we cannot seemingly directly influences Pakistani politics through the use of foriegn aid, we can act without fear of internal backlash due to their dependence on our aid ( eg. drone strikes, killing Bin Ladin). I would hope that if the current regime remains in power, we could slowly influence Syrian politics through the use of aid, in place of military intervention.

ariana ortega

11/13/2013 04:27:45 am

today during class we were discussing about the military interventions and our military intervention has affected other countries. the one country that caught my eye today was when the United States did not help Rwanda. during the 90s. during the 90s Rwanda was having a genocide between two of the tribes. one of the tribes was given more rights and economic status and the other tribe was given a lower economic status and was told to live in the slums of Rwanda. the UN did not labeled Rwanda as a genocide so the united states was not able to intervene with the conflict. it kind of made me think about how we in america are lucky to have what we have, and we do not have worry about we will die or not.
critical think question: what do think how we as a country should intervene with other countries problems.

Bianca

11/13/2013 08:41:50 am

Hello Ariana,
I have actually thought about a similar question like this before, and I think the best way to intervene in another countries problems is to gently approach the situation. We should not be demanding nor aggressive but approach the country with as much respect as we would want. Talking things out like civilized human beings is the best way to go. Now if a country isn't compromising than perhaps assertiveness would help but I wouldn't still think that physical violence is necessary.

Jessica Rios

11/13/2013 01:46:05 pm

I agree I believe we shouldn't come off to strong or aggressive. The way to confront issues these these would be to do it in a calm matter. If we use force then that can cause an issue with us and we do not need another war

Ariana Ortega

11/13/2013 12:06:47 pm

I would like to add on to my blog post about the Syria chemical weapons. The only reason why we did not help Syria is , because Russia sells weapons to Syria. When the countries Russia, China or the US say that they will not go into war with a country, then there is no war.

Aditya Davar

11/13/2013 02:05:02 pm

Great question! I think we shouldn't intervene unless the UN requires further assistance. The united nation is there for a reason, police and regulate countries from the brink of cause. That being said what happened in Rwanda is devastating, as a world super power there is an obligation to ease suffering especially genocide.

Flora Tang

11/13/2013 06:32:40 am

In class today, we discussed the chemical weapons used in Syria. Last year, I was on a debate team and the resolution for the year was: "The United States Federal Government should substantially reform its foreign military presence and/or foreign military commitments," and one of the cases was on banning Syria's use of chemical weapons. According to the Washington post, in an August attack, more than 1,500 civilians were killed in a chemical attack, almost 426 were children. However, back in 2007-2010, a treaty was drawn and formalized to stop Syrian chemical weapon use, but neither the United States or Syria signed it. I also read an article talking about how the U.N. is finally taking action on this, something that we discussed in class. The U.N. is currently taking steps towards a peace process for the stopping of Syrian chemical weapon use. The United States and Russia had also decided to work together to stop the Syrian government’s attack on its citizens. What I've been wondering is why the U.N. didn't do anything about it earlier? Was it because there was no benefit in helping, due to the political side of things? Why has the U.N., plus United States and Russia finally decided to help stop these horrendous attacks?

Matias Chapman

11/13/2013 06:36:32 am

So far this week we've covered United States' military presence and support in Israel, its actions towards internal Syrian conflict, and the lack of any international support whatsoever for the Hutu/Tutsi conflict and ensuing genocide in Rwanda. To begin with, the U.S. troubled itself with participating in the Syrian civil war following the discovery of chemical weapons manufactured by the Syrian Government. The Syrian rebel forces increased their strength dramatically after a factory owned by the government was found to be manufacturing chemical weapons. The problem with the U.S.' involvement is that the general population voiced strongly and clearly that another war in another country was not what we needed, nor what we wanted. So instead of publicly sending thousands of troops to Syria, the President sent a smaller, covert force that would "quietly" subdue the middle-eastern nation's internal conflict.
The next topic we looked at was the Union's continued use of American tax dollars for military supply and support in Israel. We are operating a surrogate oppressive force in the small country of Israel, which has used our undying supply of military weapons and training to mistreat and marginalize the Palestinian population surrounding it. In fact, a surprisingly large percentage of the population of Israel supports the growing movement seeking to effectively remove the Palestinian presence in the region. In other words, they are heading towards a genocide of the Palestinians, who they consider lesser, dirty beings. The degree to which racism has pervasively taken hold of the Israeli population reminded me of the German population in the early 30s, when Hitler began his mission to provide the Germans a way out of misery, starting with scapegoating the Jewish population for the economic crash from that decade.
Finally, the Union decided it would avoid stepping into the fight in Rwanda during the genocide by one tribe towards the other, because of reasons involving a lack of economic opportunity or profit in any way, exploitative or not, if we created an alliance with Syria. Similarly, the U.N. used the basis that the murderers and victims were of opposing tribes reason to not officially call it a genocide but rather an internal armed conflict. In fact, the Rwandan genocide was by far one of the bloodiest and most devastating to date.

Critical thinking: What can be done to remind the Israeli people that their grandparents and great grandparents, as well as the massive percentage of the general Jewish population in Europe, that died in a genocide led by reasons similar to the ones for which they advocate a "cleansing of Israel?"

Elizabeth Hill

11/13/2013 07:08:47 am

Today in class, Ms. Crain began the lecture with some current events that are taking place. One story included the discussion about the Texas Republican Judge Carlo Key, who decided to leave the Republican party. It’s not common for Republicans to decide to abandon their political party affiliation however he believes that the conservatives have become more extreme regarding issues about sexual orientation, economic status and skin color. He explained, “I have not left the Republican party. It left me.” The statement is very surprising but very true. It wouldn't be shocking to begin to see more conservative politicians becoming disassociated with their political stances. Republicans need to accept that our society is changing and becoming more socially accepting of specific things. However, as much as conservatives try to fight it, the reality is that more and more politicians and voters will accept our society and the direction that it is going, like Judge Key.
Question: Do you agree that conservatives will eventually accept the changes that are being made or will they continue to become more extreme?

Allie

11/13/2013 07:34:00 am

Honestly I don't think that it will change at least not anytime soon. Each side seems to split further and further apart to try and compensate for the other party being so far to one side. As long as both extreme liberals and conservatives are in power the parties are going to keep going on with their business.

Sam Kuhlman

11/14/2013 02:03:43 am

I don't think the conservatives will ever change. They are too hard headed when it comes to their beliefs. I know this from first hand experience because my dad is a conservative and whenever he and my brother talk about politics it gets heated and turns into an argument.

Yocelin Barragan

11/14/2013 11:42:54 am

People in this world need something to fight for. We will always want to hear two sides of a story. I believe that’s why political parties still exist. Human beings will always have the need to fight for something whether it’s about same sex marriage or healthcare. This is why compromises are made and government shutdowns happen. I wish people would want peace in the world but that’ll never happen.

Sara Hom

11/14/2013 12:38:19 pm

I really don't think that the conservatives will change their views on people and who they are. The only thing that I think they are willing to do is to find different ways to keep our society unequal. Republicans are not the kinds of people that care about society and equality for all, instead, all they care about is money and business. Even though this party does support change, it's only change that will forever keep us separated whether its by skin color and race, or class and wealth.

Stacey Doyle

11/15/2013 04:14:29 am

Hi Elizabeth:
So I also was pretty curious about this part of the lecture. I found it rather astonishing that a Republican would say those things about the party he was in. Although I do agree that this things do happen in the political system I don't think it is fair to put all the blame into the Republican party, after all there are people who do have good values and who respect others. That said I think the problem with this is that we have a two party system: you either are a Republican or a Democrat. I think perhaps conservatives choose to remain in the Republican party because it more of a tradition or a loyalty to them, not necessarily because it is what they believe in. I think as a society there will be less conservatives over time. Different generations will react to society in a different way, and I believe that the next generations to come will be more open minded and that they will be able to transcend those barriers that currently separate people. As for conservatives, I believe there will always be some, and it's probably not a bad idea to have them (please don't associate being conservative with being discriminating) otherwise we will end up with a one party system that will control everything that we do. There is always a need for opposition but that doesn't mean that the people are bad.

Allie

11/13/2013 07:52:23 am

In class when we talk about social or economic problems it always seems to go back to two things. Racism and White folks. Well I don't understand this it seems as though that's what everyone blames everything on. Does this mean that all white people are racist and want to hold minorities down? I must be really bad at it then because I believe that if you really want it go out and get it, don't wait for someone to hand it to you. My parents aren't rich but they gave me all they could and I'm very fortunate but some of these people who blame their problems on race is bull. I look on the internet and see things like, "GUNS ARE FOR REDNECKS AND UNDER EDUCATED WHITE PEOPLE." But this is not racial? This is the same thing as racial slurs against any other race but this is talked about. As far as I'm concerned stupid comes in every color, white, black, blue, green, purple, etc. Couldn't we come up with some other excuse for problems than racism and white folks. My parents always taught me to be fair to everyone whether it race, social status, handicap or anything of that nature. I feel as though I'm pretty understanding but let me know.

Sarah Jane Estrada

11/15/2013 03:33:31 pm

I really like your point here. I'm actually really glad you brought it up. In my opinion we give too much attention to racism and all that stuff. I think if we just stopped caring so much, that it would soon fade or wouldn't be as much of an issue. True there are people who are going to be super ignorant and still say things that are really dumb, but if we approach them with love and understanding, then I think they end up learning to be more like how you say you were raised. I think we care too much about what is being said--like "Is this racist???" Thats part of the reason I think racism persists in our country. We definitely need to take a step back and realize that we are perpetuating this behavior and we can easily avoid it. We can all take steps to avoid being like that. Anyways, I agree that we focus on some races more than others--there is hate being put out there for everyone including whites. So when a minority starts trying to call out all this stuff that happens to them, I think they better also realize that white women get stereotyped and white males as well. Furthermore, mexicans, puertoricans, blacks and people of all colors have their stereotypes and their hate that is thrown on them. I think racism is dumb and I think we should call it something else. I think we should simply call it hate and stop fueling the fire by labeling it as such. I think it'll take away a lot of issues if we do that. I don't know if I addressed everything in your post, but I really liked it and dug some of the points you made.

Bianca

11/13/2013 09:13:42 am

Today's class was hard to take in. I know there is plenty of cruelty in the world but I try my best to not think about it much. It depresses me and makes me question if there is any good in the world but then I remember people like professor Crain and judge Keys. Truly, I was completely surprised with the article professor Crain shared with us. A republican Judge feeling left out by his own political party. It makes me happy to see that our society is changing and we're progressing as a nation. We all have the right to pursue happiness and shouldn't feel neglected in our homeland. Hooray for those who are brave enough to speak out against human cruelty and rights!

What are your thoughts on what Judge Keys had to say?

Konstantin Harder

11/13/2013 12:19:03 pm

Hello Bianca, so i think this is a huge step made bay Judge Keys. This is something which i think doesn't happen very often that a member of the republican party steps away/out of the party. And i can understand his concerning, because what happen in the last weeks, like the shutdown is, out of my eyes the fault of the republican party.

sheyla camones

11/15/2013 02:33:30 pm

I feel the same way happy that slowly by slowly the society is changing and I hope is for the better. Im proud of the judge who did this because he had the guts to confront what he does not believe on. Eventually the other politians will also think the way judge Keys thinks. Learning everything I have learned this term in Ms Crains class has shocked me. I have always picture the U.S as a great nation that does no harm to people and looks for the good of the people. The only way we can change the actions of this country is if we all really fight for our rights and realize that we need to stand for what we belive like Judge Key did.

Steven Le

11/15/2013 05:17:49 pm

Hi Bianca, I actually agree on what you have to say about society changing for a brighter tomorrow. Slowly but it does give us the people some insight and guidance to follow their path and doing what they believe is right which is equality. There's so much in this world that's hidden from us, but we still get that ounce of negativity and to see something like this can really open up a world that's completely new.

Prasanna Kancherlapalli

11/13/2013 09:44:51 am

In class today, we talked about Judge Key whom was a former Republican. Key claimed that he did not leave the Republican Party, rather it left him. This refers to the Republican's former principles of pragmatism and principle changing to that of pettiness and bigotry. It brings the important point of how politics can change with time, namely, the Republican Party's turn to extremism. We also discussed the rational and irrational beliefs of both the Republicans and the Democrats. For example, a rational belief of the Republican parties is the belief in small government, which unfortunately contradicts itself, as they support laws that are the product of big government such as anti gay laws, and laws strengthening border patrol in Mexico. As for the Democrats, they have the very rational belief in federal services, as it should be a government duty to serve the people's needs. Unfortunately there is also contradictions within the Democratic party, such as their inability to decide whether they should support gay marriage or not. They also support spying on OPEC's oil cartel for economic benefits, but as we should know spying is undemocratic. We finished by discussing government intervention into foreign countries, by which they try to justify by claiming it's to aid them. However, they did not come to the aid of Rwanda during the conflict between the Tutsis and the Hutus, when only one group was given benefits, while the other group was left to live in the slums. It seems America goes out to “aid” countries in conflict, when they have valuable resources. I think it's really greedy of our government to take these people's resources, and bombing them when they refuse. It's their resources, they should not be forced to give away what rightfully belongs to them.

Question:

Do you think the Two Party System based on what has happened for so many years, is too incompetent, and if so, what do you think would be a more adequate form of government?

Is it important for citizens to depend less on foreign resources, such as motor oil, to help further prevent government policing of other countries?

Ho Wai "Howard" Mok

11/14/2013 12:07:11 pm

As the government system for the US, there are not just two parties, but yes that there are only two major ones. However, we need both of them. The government always need both of them to balance thing out. It is not good to have a country goes too liberal or too Conservative.

I am afraid that in this stage the US still have to depends on foreign resources, may be not all of them, but at least, as you said, motor oil. I don't think there would be enough gas for all the citizen within the USA even though we have some. Therefore, I think that is also the reason why there are a bunch of auto companies start investing on electric cars. That may help, I guess.

Christian Decareau

11/15/2013 02:41:58 pm

The two party systems has been detrimental for quite a while, it’s worthy to take note that even the founding fathers did not wish to implement a party system due to a fear of dividing the nation’s people. They knew that it would eventually divide interests and stagnates advances in policies. While I am for the dissolution of parties as a formal entity that does not mean that any shared beliefs should be disbanded on that basis. Political parties tend to become associated with one’s identity, causing political conflicts to become personal and further dividing people.

As for the matter of self-dependency, yes, it is important for us to focus our interests more on the home front if you will, since these actions have caused in both past and present, a decline in foreign relations. Not to mention that when we rely on a resource so far away, which becomes contested due to conflict, we are then dragged into whatever conflict that we may not even support, purely for economic gains.

Lisa Rabago

11/13/2013 10:05:31 am

Today in class we discussed the ways the U.S. government interacts with other countries. These include aid, trade, and the military. Giving aid involves helping people have basic needs, providing disaster relief, and loaning money. As mentioned in class, aid often has political reasons to help politicians get reelected. Trade has to do with international business relations. One of our biggest exports is food but we are also one of the largest arms dealers in the world. The U.S.’s military is when the government dispatches troops around the world to deal with conflict. Of note is that the U.S., Russia, and China have so much influence in the world that even if they commit human rights violations no governments really do anything about it. We only tend to intervene if we have an economic or political interest in the situation. I did some more research on the School of America. Not only did the U.S. government support these dictators but actually taught many of them. That makes a lot of the problems Latin American countries have with dictators and repressed democracy our governments fault. Due to public protest the school changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation but it continues to operate today.
Critical Thinking Question: Do you think the School of America should be closed?

IngridC

11/14/2013 07:20:29 am

Yes, I do believe that School of America (Assassins) should be closed down. I didn't even know about this until Professor Crain mentioned it. I did some more research about it and this is inhuman and plainly cruel. There shouldn't be any place like this but unfortunatly there is in about 18 different countries and has graduated 65,000 soldiers.

Leyla Mousli

11/13/2013 10:53:33 am

Today in class, all of the topics on Democracy Now were tragic, there was one headline that specifically caught my eye, and I was interested in doing some more research on it. In Oklahoma there exists an anti-abortion ultrasound law which requires all women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound exam, and then have the image place in front of them, while listening to a detailed narration of their fetus. On Tuesday the Supreme Court, however, declined to hear a challenge against that anti-abortion law because they believe it is constitutional to force abortion seeking women to undergo this process. This is actually the second time this month that the Supreme court has refused to take up a challenge to the rulings on abortion. There was a quote that I found online that I found rather interesting it stated: "A woman’s personal, private medical decisions should be made in consultation with the health-care professionals she trusts, without interference by politicians who presume to know better. Today the U.S. Supreme Court has let stand another strong decision by the Oklahoma courts protecting a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions about whether to continue a pregnancy from the intrusion of politicians opposed to her rights and indifferent to her health". It was said by Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. My question to you all is what is your opinion about the subject? Do you believe forcing women to undergo this procedure is constitutional? Why or why not?

Chelsey Beckler

11/16/2013 01:22:51 pm

Hi Leyla,

I personally believe that it is wrong and traumatic to force a woman to go through that procedure. I believe a woman has a right to with her body and health as she pleases, whether I agree with her choice or not. I believe it is unconstitutional to in any way limit or make it harder for a woman to use this right. For most women, making a decision to have an abortion is already really emotional and hard. If they are trying to deter woman from having abortions, I don't think making them watch an ultra-sound would be very effective.

Leyla Mousli

11/20/2013 03:49:40 pm

Thank you for your response Chelsey, and I 100% agree with everything you said. Making the decision to have an abortion is not an easy decision to make and forcing a woman to undergo that procedure must be extremely traumatic. I also believe that it is wrong what they are doing.

Brian Phen

11/13/2013 11:15:38 am

Today in class professor Crain showed us the Democracy News, and she also showed us an article about a congressional candidate named Jason Thigpen. The article talked about how he switched from being a part of the republican party to being a part of the democratic party now. It's a pretty big deal and is important because it shows that maybe he now has a change of perspective to what government should be. Today we also got into a big discussion about military intervention and aid that has happened or is happening right now in the world. One of the locations talked about was Israel. Another topic that rose to the discussion when talking about military was about Kony. Professor Crain mentioned how he was actually taught a lot by the School of America's in Georgia. What amazes me is that even though he is kidnapping all the children soldiers in Africa, his teachings had come from America. It's pretty scary to know that maybe the teachings of the School of America's tainted his evil intentions to an even further extent.
My Question this week is even if you may be an independent party supporter, democratic supporter, republican supporter and so on, do you ever feel that sometimes the opposing party might have ideas that are actually reasonable?

Minh Van

11/15/2013 03:16:01 pm

Absolutely. People usually become a member of a party because they can relate to most of the viewpoints of that particular party. We want to be represented by what we are; liberal or conservative. But some time you don't agree with certain ddecision the party you're in make, but you still stick with that party due to that fact that it's still the most relatable party. For instance, I am a democrat, but I think that it's best for the country to tax the rich people less and here's why. Taxing the rich with a lower percentage will serve as encouragement and reward to people to get educated and become successful. I see this as a way to promote more and more young adult to do well academically.

Han kyung kim

11/13/2013 11:26:28 am

today we were discussing about how U.S. department of defense plays their role and its intervention in the external affairs of many countries. we had been involved with so many different combats in so many different countries that we can't hardly remember all and our government, believes war would bring people a peace but never been so peaceful after war from another...as I once have experienced in combat in Iraq war I witnessed so many our young aged troops had been sacrifices of their lives (about 27,000 troops were deployed, a total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012) for honor, commitment and our country. Since all these years we've fought, I still don't understand why does U.S always intervene into every single war while they can always intervene in the internal of our society like racism or prejudice?!

My critical thinking question: Will there be for the government to say "there is no more Military intervention"?!
who would take full responsible for someone who died in combat zone?!

Terrence Chantengco

11/13/2013 12:04:49 pm

Today in class, Professor Crain showed us an article about a former Republican who then switched over to the Democratic Party. Judge Carlo Key was a former Texan republican who recently switched over to the Democratic Party due to the extreme views of the Republicans that he wasn’t happy about. We also discussed the issue of government intervention of aid, military, and trade. Providing aid to the people is when a natural disaster occurs, or civil wars that would remain unrest. The relation of trade is that we are the provider of weapons. We are the father of guns when it comes to international trade. Although, we are the ones giving international countries these weapons we can’t really do anything about it. It helps us stimulate the U.S. budget due to gun selling to all these foreign countries especially Israel. We are able to give military support who are allies with us such as, Israel. But we don’t get involved into a lot of serious conflicts like the genocide in Rwanda, a fight between the Hutu, and the Tutsis.

Critical Thinking Question:
Why is the U.S. trying to avoid international conflicts? Why doesn’t the U.S. help resolve their problems?

Brian Phen

11/13/2013 01:22:52 pm

Why wouldn't the U.S. try to avoid international conflicts? The more the U.S. tries to intervene or solve the conflict, many different outcomes can be the result of it. It would be good if all international conflicts could be solved, but theirs always a positive and negative to what happens after. I guess if the U.S. were to try to solve the problems that a country was having, theirs many possible results that could happen. One thing that could happen is the country that has the conflict refuses the help of the U.S. Another possible reason is that another country can probably stop the U.S. from trying to interfere with the business and conflict that a country is facing. Lastly I think that some countries may refuse to receive help from the U.S. maybe because of self pride and don't want to seem weak.

Michael Caudill

11/13/2013 12:08:16 pm

So far this week out of all the things Ms. Crain has talked about. The part that caught my ear was when the class was talking about us the United States intervening in other countries. Fellow classmates have said in class that we only help other countries because they have something we want. Well their 100% correct but!!!! why would we want to put our own people in possible danger for nothing. But a little recognition. Wouldn't you only want to put yourself in a life or death situacion fighting for something rather than dying for nothing.

Konstantin Harder

11/13/2013 12:29:01 pm

in the lecture of today, Miss Crain showed us a news report of a judge, who was a member of the republican party. But a couple of weeks ago he decided to step out of the party, because he could not belong to a party which judges people on which race they are and what sexuality they have. He said that the republican party left him, not he the party. And i think this is a huge step for him and the society we live in. Because it shows that there are people who are not satisfied with what the republican party does. And also to be mentioned is that the judge is from Texas.
So i was thinking of, what will or could the responses of other republican member or/and responses from the democratic party be ?

Stacey Doyle

11/13/2013 12:29:36 pm

So today in class we talked about various things, mainly about the different types of involvement that the United States participates in. Trade, aid and military involvement. As a superpower the U.S. feels the need to provide help to other countries in need; but in reality the U.S. only helps others to benefit itself. We talked about the differences between U.S. involvement in Syria: where it wasn't much of military aid (covert operations not known to the public), it's lack of involvement in Rwanda: a tribal war that turned into a genocide and the U.S. didn't acknowledge or provided help (because acknowledging that it was a genocide would have made the U.S. accountable for the people and required the country to let them in as refugees, and El Salvador: a civil war where the U.S. provided military aid to the Salvadorian government (training people in the School of the Americas, to attack normal citizens from El Salvador) First critical question: who really makes the decisions on who and how to help or provide aid to other countries in our government?
Another topic we talked about was on how people switch from their political parties, we talk about the change they make based on morals and ethics. How political parties have evolved and changed with time. Second critical question: do you believe that it's ok to change political parties? (Democratic to republican and viceversa) Prof Crain talked about democrats with a big D and democrats with a little d so for my third critical question: What happens when people might not entirely agree with one political party? Do they have to choose to still be with that party?

Jennalynn Luz-Fernando

11/13/2013 01:08:36 pm

Hello Stacy. I believe that members have the right and freedom to leave and switch parties when they don't agree with the one they currently inhabit. They may try and express their opinion of disagreement in their political party, but if it goes against what the party usually stands for, the party will probably ignore the one member in favor of the many other members or for their own agendas. I believe that individuals can choose to join another party or quit political parties altogether. However, I think many will be reluctant to ever leave their political parties, for the perks that they received will be gone as well. So it is more likely that an individual will choose another party and keep switching just as long as they keep receiving benefits from said parties.

Tyler Bond

11/15/2013 11:13:30 am

I agree with you on this I feel everybody should have the freedom to be apart and switch whatever party they want to due to the beliefs they have or the beliefs of he party. I did not know that people receive benefits from parties though that surprised me thank you for that information

Brenda Mejia

11/13/2013 12:32:17 pm

Today in class prof Crain touched upon some current event involving a Texas republican judge leaving the republic party. We also discussed our military and non-military interventions. Both topics were interesting but the one about the judge really caught my eye. I was really surprised that something like this could happen. I believe it's definitely something that should be more publicized to show that just because you are conservative does not mean you have to stay within the Republican Party when it is not satisfying your beliefs. I think the Republican Party should come to the realization that their values of being republican are to create a smaller government, not push for more border control in the US/Mexico border. My questions is, with the way things are going now do you think more people like judge key will leave the Republican Party and create their own party? Or that the Tea party within the Republican Party will be more separated and have their own party, creating a three party system instead of a two party one with republicans and democrats?

Jennalynn Luz-Fernando

11/13/2013 12:36:11 pm

Today in class we watched a video of Democracy Now and heard the story of Renisha McBride. McBride was a 19 year old black woman living in Detroit until the night of November 9, when she was shot in the head in Dearborn Heights, Mich. According to her family and other sources, McBride has been knocking on doors in the neighborhood around 2;30 am seeking help after a nasty car crash. She had apparently been shot by a white male when she came upon his door, the suspect of murder claimed it was misplaced self defense. However, many critics deem the act otherwise, stating that the circumstances center more around a hate crime, on the account that McBride was a defenseless black woman who was only seeking help in a white neighborhood. There have been protests from the family and the black community of Detroit because charges have not been pressed against the suspect of murder. Protests groups state that this event is another in a long line of racism in the justice system. I believe the situation is very suspicious and believe that the death of McBride was a hate crime. I send my utmost sympathy to the McBride family and ope justice is served for once. So here are my critical questions :
1. What is your opinion of the death of Renisha McBride?
2. Do you think that the suspect's actions are justifiable? Do you support to press charges against him?

Melissa Bui

11/13/2013 12:38:17 pm

Although I couldn’t attend class today, when we had our discussion about what everyone did for their community project, it made me open my eyes on a lot of things. When this girl told the class about how she took pictures of the homeless people and how no one helped the homeless but rather just walk right pass them, it made we realized we live in such a mess up society. We live in a society where one another or cruel to other and just do what’s best for themselves. There are also another topic from this guy saying he did a survey about how the people at the richest and best high school gets lower GPA then a person from a normal school does. It makes me wonder why that is the case. Is it because the teacher knows they get paid well and don’t really care about the students or the students are just not trying? My question therefore is: Is it so hard to do a good deed for someone even if you don’t know them?

Steven Le

11/13/2013 12:56:22 pm

Today in class we discussed how Jason Thigpen has switched from a Republican to a democrat. I saw this as a pretty big deal even though it doesn’t seem to be something that the media would broadcast due to what he had to say about the Republican Party, the main reason why I found this interesting. A quote from Thigpen was “I simply cannot stand with a party where its most elements promote hate and division amongst people,” I thought this was significant because I’ve never encountered or knew that a member of a certain party could just change platforms. For him to change and broadcast the wrongdoings of the Republican Party makes me think what if a Democrat changed their platform to a Republican and made their comments about how the Democrats are morally incorrect. I would think Jason Thigpen would have changed parties for various other reasons but that wasn’t the case, another thing I found important is that if he joined the Democrats then does that mean Democrats are people of equality?

My question is: Do you find Jason Thigpen’s change of platform significant on the basis of how he viewed the Republicans?

Catherine Lin

11/13/2013 03:38:51 pm

Hi Steven,

I think what you are are saying is interesting. I never knew that elected officials can change party after being elected (I can imagine all the angry people). I think however, the media just didn't get to that part of the news yet. I believe it will be "out there" sooner or later, either by the means of media broadcasting or the social media of people sharing the news.

I think it's a big deal, because it affects everything of the person's decision. The part that I'm still not convinced about is his reason to switch party. I think what he said has weight, but I felt that we are not getting the whole picture. I'm sure that are many more reasons to change parties than just feeling republicans are promoting "division amongst people." He only criticized the Republican party, but did not state the good about the democratic party.

I wouldn't say that his view changed, I think he just thought about things in a different perspective. He felt strongly of what he believed in, and he didn't think the Republican party is going the direction he wanted to.

Sara Hom

11/13/2013 12:56:24 pm

Today in class, we talked about racial inequalities in our society and how it is portrayed by the media. Racism and prejudice still exist in our world today because we live with it from generation to generation. Even if the minorities don't do anything wrong, they are still blamed for because that is how the media shows it to be. For example, we discussed how minorities are blamed for taking most of the welfare in the country when mainly white people were the beneficiaries of welfare. Before talking about this, I didn't know the facts and thought the same thing because that's what I was taught by society. After looking this up, I found out that about 40% of all welfare was distributed to whites. This is sad to hear about because minorities are the ones that always get blamed and are accused of being too lazy to work for their own money. The media causes us to blame the minorities for issues in society. My questions are:
Will there ever be racial equality in the society we live in?
How can racism and prejudice be stopped from flowing through the media?
When will everyone be accepted for who they are instead of being known and judged by stereotypes?

Brenda Mejia

11/15/2013 01:33:34 pm

Hi Sara! It was a shock to me too to find out that the majority of welfare beneficiaries are white people. I think racial equality can happen in our society if everyone would just be willing to get past each others differences, but unfortunately I know that is a difficult task for most people. We are even lucky to be living in a state like California where it's so diverse and more accepted to be different, but even still living in a place like this, we still face issues of racism. I don't think racism could be stopped through the media because like we've learn much of the media we watch has an agenda. Maybe if we ourselves stop watching mainstream media & change to watching stuff like democracy now or other media that is made for the public good. I don't know when prejudice will be stopped or how but I know if we all started by just being kinder to one another even to people you don't know, maybe that could encourage other people to do so as well.

Tyler Bond

11/13/2013 01:02:03 pm

So today in class we talked about our past military and nonmilitary dealing with foreign countries, nonmilitary action being aid and trade. So since America is the power house of the world we feel the need to be involved in everything that's going on around the world today basically like the worlds police officer, now everybody has there own opinion on our military and some stronger then others due to being in the military or having family in the military. To me personally I had a brother sent to Iraq and almost to Syria and I didn't feel like we needed to send him to either place but he never complained or said one word, now the almost Syrian war really bothered me and had me thinking about a few questions.
When is it ok or is it ever ok to go to war?
Do you feel America needs to be the police of the world?

Brenda Rios-Dorado

11/15/2013 01:54:38 pm

Hey Tyler. In my opinion I don't feel there is ever a reason to go to war but just cause I think war is wrong. I just feel that if there is conflict it can be solved in different terms. There are different methods to solve things than fighting. There's always compromise but people don't always choose that option. And I think there should be some sort of regulation. I don't necessarily think the US needs to be the police of the world but if they do have influence then they should use it for positive effects and help everyone and be fair. Not just do it when they may benefit themselves.

Dong june Kim

11/15/2013 05:13:16 pm

I dont think america does not need to be the police of the world just because we have the most military power. we should use our power to help weak countries not abuse it and make a war. Also i agree with brenda i dont think there are reasons to go to war. there are different ways to solve the conflict between nations.

Tina Nguyen

11/13/2013 01:05:49 pm

Today, in class, Proffessor Crain talked about the three main ways the U.S. government interacts with other countries. There's aid, trade, and military. We didn`t have time to go over trade, but we were able to cover the other two topics. What caught my attention was the Rwanda genocide. During this genocide, the U.S. military could`ve intervene to stop this, but they didn`t. Clinton, who was the president at the time, just didn`t want to intervene. When i heard of this, why didn`t we? Or offer some aid to them?
We had also talked about School of the Americas. It was my first time of hearing this and learning the fact that this school runs more dictators than any other school in the world. This piece of fact was just astounding to me. Most of the graduates that came from this school have been accused of human rights violation and criminal activities is just tell me a lot. Why is this school still running and why is our country still supporting this school? Its just devastating to know that something like this exist in our country.

Critical questions: Do you think we should have a say whether we should intervene or not? How should we do it?

Lisa Rabago

11/15/2013 05:12:50 am

It wasn't just the U.S. who didn't intervene in Rwanda. The United Nations also pulled out their troops who I think we're mostly Belgian (Rwanda was once a Belgian territory, another human rights violation but that another issue). This is another thing which bothers me. When the United Nations was formed one of their tenants was to make sure that nothing like the Holocaust ever happened again yet they do not intervene when atrocities like the Rwandan genocide happen. I think we should intervene and it should be done through the United Nations, with all countries helping. When genocides occur, it says something bad about humanity. The least we can do is say "NO" we are not going to be uncaring monsters and let these things happen.

Yocelin Barragan

11/13/2013 01:21:28 pm

Today we talked about the Judge in Bexar County, Texas, Carlo Key who left the Republican Party and switched to the Democratic Party. I honestly don’t find this surprising at all. Times are changing and people’s mindset should be drifting along with it. It’s okay to feel different about a social issue. Conservative people though, are being left behind not because of their beliefs but because they don’t know how to compromise and open up to something new. It’s sad how he had to say, “… I have not left the Republican Party, It left me.” He also agrees that the Republican Party has a problem with “acceptance”. Would any candidate running for office lose his chances because of his party? Is the Democratic Party taking over because of all the new changes in the world?

sheyla camones link

11/13/2013 01:32:57 pm

Today during class we talked a little about the School of the Americas. I have never heard of it before and I was shock to hear what it was. I wanted to know more about the the School of the Americas also known as School of the Assessins". Its a millitary program for Latin American soldiers in combat, counterinsurgency, and counter-narcotics. This article tells stories of people being victims of the assessins. All of their stories are really ssad.The most shocking testimony was the one with Adriana Bartow from Guatemala , lost 6 of her family members. They were killed by people who where trained at the School of the Americas. Hearing this stories about this people open my eyes more. This article is letting people know what this school is really about and that we need to speak up and stop it.

CQ- Whos idea was to open a school like this one, and how does the U.S benefit from It?

Yadira Narez

11/13/2013 01:41:29 pm

In class today we talked about military/ non-military aid. I never heard about school of Americas, I was surprised the things Ms. Crain said about them. Why didn't the government intervening when they were killing and raping people. Then the Military officials wont take the blame or condemn their action. The United states government should focus more on helping its peoples, stop hunger and violence but instead our money is going to people who are hurting others and also using them to get their oil and other goods. And when innocent people do need help the government does not want to intervene. We as humans need to learn to help each other and help clean the earth. With all this bombings, war and chemical weapons we are slowly killing the earth and soon we will all die because our greed over power and wealth.

Jorge Talamante

11/13/2013 01:43:14 pm

This month marks the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy assassination. On NBC, there having documentary on that day, called Where Were You? They had celebrities, politicians, host on famous shows. On of them were the Secretary of State John Kerry shared what he was doing on the day that the assassination, and describe his day. He was having a soccer game at Harvard, he then talks about he doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. You can tell that he knows more then he saying but doesn't want to put out information that America is ready for. At the end of the interview he says united states needs to open up the files on whatever history can be shed light on.

Christian Decareau

11/13/2013 01:51:08 pm

Today during class we opened discussion on a former Republican Judge now Democrat Carlo Keys and his message discussing his reasons about why he left. The open admittance of his previous party’s radical stance, how negativity, hate, and prejudice becoming accepted as a normal practice, and his hate of it is a breath of fresh air. While he is switching over to the Democratic Party, he has stated that his conservative mindset has not changed. Recently political public images have become extremely one sided and negative on both accounts, with each side’s followers believing that the world will be better off without one. My beliefs on this are that a healthy competition of ideology ensures a diversity of beliefs and policies, much like how in businesses it ensures a variety of choices for consumers. What are your opinions? Should politicians go on as they have in opposing parties? Or should political parties be disbanded on the grounds of dividing Americans, and instead be focused on a more individualistic ideology?

Jessica Rios

11/13/2013 01:57:48 pm

Today in class we talked about the military force. I was really surprised off the fact that the US government chooses what country they are going help stop crime buy if they are allies. Like what my class talked about was how in china for many year they were using the death penalty causing to kill thousands of people. The US government did nothing to stop it because we use there resources and are in debt to them. I found this just not being right. So my question to you is do you think it's right to pick and choose who to protect?

Eric Ortiz

11/15/2013 05:38:13 am

I think we should have the option of who we protect. The only way I agree with that is if we aren't bias and don't see what benefits us more. For example you talked about how the government helped china only because they have resources that we want. If this example I think it's wrong to do this. But this is the reality and most of the time is a messed up system with the government.

robert chavira

11/15/2013 09:01:26 am

you have to look at it from our government s perspective. There is no way we are can try to tell china to do anything. if we create any conflict with china it would hurt our economy.

Chas Heal

11/13/2013 02:05:17 pm

After today’s class it showed me that this world today is not getting better and America is actually just falling apart from the inside out. Prof Crain brought up an article how a Judge from Texas was criticized for leaving a Republican party and joined the Democrats just because he didn’t believe in what they stood for anymore. As she spoke she stated that the Republican party left him and it was not he who left them. Culture in America is continuously changing and things are going down hill where life its self is becoming a game of politics. Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves which is honestly killing all of us in America. Instead they should work together try and compromise rather then be against each other all the time. People today all have different mind sets and want to try and express what they think and feel, instead of being contained and close minded to one individual party. If things could start being agreed upon then maybe America would be able to become a better and more solidified state and possibly not be so far in debt and practically be owned by China.

Aditya Davar

11/13/2013 02:31:44 pm

There are many reasons why a country come to aid for another; profit after giving the aid, prove influence of power or the good old fashion "it is the right thing to do!" Before jumping into conclusions I believe the reason to intervene has to be justified. Jessica Rios mentioned that the Chinese government has killed thousands of people as a crime punishment. This is unfortunate, yet fair, in a way. China’s current population is 1.3 billion people and US population is only 313 million; that death penalty percentage barely tips the balance for concern. China happens to be our ally too, so intervening on this particular issue would not be possible. I think it is right to choose which countries to meddle with. In terms of profit, United States invaded Iraq with a side agenda. Through propaganda US claimed the Iraqi had weapons of mass destruction. Interestingly enough Iraq happens to be sitting on an ocean of oil.

My question would be:
1) How can a country conjure a reason for justification to intervene a foreign problem?

Minh Van

11/13/2013 02:45:22 pm

I was not able to show up to the Wednesday's class and there weren't much information to talk able on Tuesday, so I will try my best to write brief summary off of the article: A Brief History of Key Military Interventions. As far as I know, U.S. has been in many foreign interventions dealing with combating these "terrorist" acts and in many of these instances these interventions were not approved by the United Nations. I do not get why our country has to intervene with other country's problem, like overthrowing a nation's ruler because he/she is deemed a dictator. We do have a powerful military system, but why not use it for homeland security instead of going oversea and starting wars. We can cut down tons of money and saves thousands of lives if we just do NOTHING. If it is another nation's problem, let them handle their own situation and not cause deeper conflict. Imagine what our country can do with the money saved from funding these invasions. They can provide education and profession opportunities to the needy, boost our economy, and maybe reduce the country's debts. I know that this bit of summary and opinion might be one sided, and I wonder if there is any real good, long term benefit(s) as to why we put our troops to all these craziness so here's my critical questions:

What good come out at the end of these U.S. military interventions?

Cindy Tran

11/13/2013 02:50:33 pm

Hello, today in class, Professor Crain presented many topics that includes the shocking and ironic change that occurred over the years between the views of the Republic and Democratic party. After reading the article that she presented to us about the Judge Carlo R. Key who was a former Republican from Texas, I was surprised. Once he stated that the party left him, there was a clear sign of the problem between political parties. I've heard many irrational beliefs of the Republican party, and I've always wondered when will they ever stop? And learning about rational and irrational beliefs about both parties, I am wondering when will the parties ever change? Will there be change? Obviously it has happened before but what about now, especially when the problem between our government and political parties seem to have become too close and personal particularly when it involves religion?

Yadira Narez

11/15/2013 06:10:41 am

I believe they will never change unless the people of United states want to. We all come from different back grounds but we're still the same. We all have hopes and dreams. We all want to be respected and treated the same.

Elizabeth Hill

11/15/2013 08:19:16 am

I think it's hard to understand the direction that our political system is going, however, the different beliefs of each party seem to become more and more extreme. The conservatives continue to reject our evolving society and the diversity that continues to unfold. But in time, there must be a neutralizer and the different parties must attempt to meet halfway.

Christopher Hveem

11/13/2013 02:59:30 pm

It seems that approval of our system of government is becoming less and less reliable and people are losing faith in a failing system. As citizens we have the right to abolish this government when it no longer meets the need of the people is serves, its what the declaration of independence is based on. Support of congress has fallen into the single digit percentages among both parties, the lowest recorded in the 40 year history of the company gathering the information. It is no surprise with the recent government shut down it was expected to decrease but it had never gone below 10% until the results of a poll from Nov. 7th to 10th was calculated. The disapproval doesn’t stop with congress, President Obama has an approval rate of only 39% the lowest number since he has came into office.

http://rt.com/usa/congress-approval-sinks-single-digits-675/

Brenda Rios-Dorado

11/13/2013 03:00:37 pm

Today in class we learned about a republican judge that no longer wants to participate in the Republican Party. He stated that he didn't leave the Republican Party, it left him. It's really interesting because it's not something you see everyday. It makes you wonder what the party's are up to and why this man no longer wanted to be affiliated with the Republican Party. Keys stated that the Republican Party no longer is what it was before when he first became involved because the way they were led and did things' he does not agree with. I like the fact that there are still people who have a change of heart and if they are involved in something they no longer beleive in, they decide to no longer go along with what they don't beleive is right. Because many people are so accustom to things, they go along with things they don't necessarily believe or agree with. Critical question: what possible issues might have cause keys to want to stop following the Republican Party?

robert chavira

11/13/2013 03:06:07 pm

Today in class we spoke about military and non military aid. We discussed three major situations in which aid was needed and our decisions that led us to pursue to help or not. The main one that caught my eye was the genocide in Rwanda. Essentially there were two groups, one that was given financial opportunity and one that was essentially told to go live in poverty. Our decision to step in or not was really based off of what would benefit us. We decided not to step in because it had no economic benefit for us. It is crazy to think that a super power like the US which acts like it out to better the world is now solely basing their help on whether it is beneficial to us.

My question is
-Why is it that the country of Rwanda was split and each side was given different economic status?

Anna Baucus

11/16/2013 01:47:43 am

I think it's a lot easier to control a populace if it's divided. We've seen a lot of examples of this in history, a really easy one to use his Nazi Germany and separating out Jews and others. Eventually there's scapegoating for problems that lead to genocide.

We can even look at some of the, more subtle, although that's arguable, divisions within our own society. Look at the language we use toward people without legal documentation, how we address immigration, some of the media's hate speak that I think is reinforcing an idea of a second class citizenry... There's a lot more that I won't go into here. But just look at the racist example of the neighborhood re-population in New Orleans, these are people of the same class, completely divided by race. I'd argue that keeping different groups scared of one another and the extreme racism of many political groups is a tool to keep us controlled.

I think if we weren't divided - and colonialism is notorious for using that tool, but if we weren't divided we would be in a position of much more empathy. Division creates unfamiliarity which creates fear, we lose some of our natural connectedness to one another if we are scared of each other and can't provide the empathy that says - we're all just human. As hippie as it sounds, think about your own prejudices and how they impact you and how they may have changed over time when actually getting to know people.

I think those different economic statuses for the people in Rwanda was a calculated move to control a population. And we should recognize that it isn't always in such an extreme form but exists in many forms all over and especially here in the US.

Felicia Murillo

11/13/2013 03:10:06 pm

In class today what caught my attention was when we were talking about how the untied states like to get into every other countries battles and tell them what they are doing wrong. Or how if another country is in a crisis like if they got hit my a tsunami or bombed or some tragic natural disaster came along there we go to help them when we aren't even helping ourselves. This is why I hate hearing about the world and just choose to pretend that everything doesn't personally effect me. Because sometimes is doesn't, but what I don't get is why does the US think that they can just go along and waste money on other countries. I mean how many allies do you need to make? Why can't you worry about the people in your own country because they need help too. Why wouldn't you help yourself first? I mean right? Anyway miss Crain said that we will do nothing to china pretty much ever because they basically own us thanks to our billion dollar debt we have accumulated. They kill people all the time and they have the death penalty and use it very often. I forgot what else they do but we do nothing because if we try and tell them what's right they would just turn around and bomb us we would lose for sure and yeah. So why do you the US has such entitlement issues? Also what so you think the US should work on doing to keep all of its citizens safe and secure when natural disasters happen?

Anja Svitlica

11/13/2013 03:21:13 pm

I have the Associated Press app on my iPhone and I got a notification stating that only under 27,000 were signed up for Obama care through the official website. I feel like this whole Affordable Health Care plan is very flawed and it seems like we are turning away from a democratic country and taking steps towards socialism. What are your thoughts on the Affordable Health Care plan and why do you guys think the website is still not working properly? Also, do you think the administration will reach their goals of people signed up for health care?

Tedrick Rumohr

11/13/2013 03:22:57 pm

Today we had talked about a Texas judge that left the Republican Party. I thought it was really interesting that he said he didn't leave the Republican Party, but the party abandoned him with such disgrace. It shows how far human kind has come. The fact that we can think critically and believe in our thoughts enough to leve a party is huge. We are not just being immature and pointing fingers, but we are trying to fix things. We had also learned about how the United States decides they're going to help certain countries. If they have something that will benefit us, then we will gladly help them out. But if they have nothing to help us, we will not help them. Like with Syria, we aren't helping because Russia is selling them weapons and we don't want to piss off Syria. With El Salvador, we went in to help them because they may have resources we want access to later. My questions to you are:

1. How do you feel about the judge leaving the Republican Party?
2. Do you agree or disagree with our foreign policy?

Edward Yang-Cabebe

11/13/2013 04:40:46 pm

I agree with what you said, I think this example shows that (some?) individuals are not just blindly following everything the majority of the party says, are thinking about what they are doing, and making their own choices accordingly. From what he had said about the Republican Party and his decision to switch over, I personally find it hard to not respect him.
I barely know anything about our nation's foreign policy, but based off of lecture so far, I can't really say that I disagree with much, yet. Though probably wrong/unfair, United States, when aiding others, is doing it for benefits. This may include building friendship with other nations, for later resources, and/or trying to remain the dominant power the nation was known for during the Cold War. If the government is helping other nations, it is supposed to benefit the nation, hopefully.

Vincent Narvaez

11/13/2013 03:27:44 pm

So today in class we discussed current events, and military intervention, and I have to say that i am extremely happy that a republican judge made the switch to the democratic party because he could not stand the republican party anymore. The fact that a conservative mind could find the flaws in the republican's way and how they've been acting recently gives me a lot of hope for the future. The Republican Party always seemed so hard headed and stubborn so I assume that a lot of people in the party are afraid to admit they do not agree with how the republican party is handling themselves, but at the same time they do not want to seem wrong so they just go along with it. I would be happy if this became a trend and more and more republicans saw the error in their was and moved over to the democratic party and if not just fixed how the Republican party conducts business. My critical thinking questions are : Do you think this will create a trend or affect the Republican Party in any way? and Why do you think this story has not had any media coverage?

Eric Pham

11/13/2013 04:29:14 pm

I think many people are blaming the Republican Party for not pass bills, and they are the main focus of causing the government shutdown. I personally found it funny because they would refuse to agree on anything that is proposed from the President. To your question, I do believe that if Republican Party keeps acting like this with more people leaving the party, they would continue to lose their reputation. As a result, more people will no longer believe in them or will not vote for a president from Republican Party. And I think the reason why story like this is only covered by small media groups is because of favoritism. Some big media groups don't want to let this embarrassing news to the people because they receive some kind of special treatment from their interested party.

Catherine Lin

11/13/2013 03:30:42 pm

http://youtu.be/07zyJgeuM8I

Joaquin Torres

11/13/2013 03:44:14 pm

Today in class as we were talking about United States military intervention in other countries, I took an interest most specifically in the Rwanda scenario. I saw the movie Hotel Rwanda in one of my high school classes a few years ago, and although it's a movie, I think it did an excellent job of portraying the reality for the average person. When I was listening to the lecture, I was drawing parallels from the movie and it's easy to understand that the United States has very little political advantage to aiding an underprivileged country like Rwanda. Then again, there are other countries in African regions that have resources that receive some sort of intervention because of political interest. I also thought the issue about designating Rwanda a refugee country was interesting because I think many immigrants are in reality refugees although not by official designation. In fact, many Latin American immigrants are in the U.S. for that same reason, a lot of them being economic refugees because of seemingly positive things like NAFTA. With NAFTA, a lot of poor farmers could not compete with larger plantations and taxes and were therefore forced into poverty.
1. Do you think the United States (or any country for that matter) has a right to intervene with militant force in other countries, especially countries that are not neighboring?
2. Does military intervention ever bring any benefit to the countries receiving intervention?

Gabriela Martinez

11/13/2013 03:45:06 pm

This morning on class we discussed aid,military, trade. We spoke about how the US decides on which countries it is going to help, and many times they can be seen a counter in trouble and have the opportunity to do something, and does not act. What factors that did it to me during this class was, the news about the change of party. After been in a party for quite some time and bribing in it, one leaves it to go to the party whom at one point was the rival. Should political representatives be allowed to change parties out should they just be able to exit their current party?

Cory Berg

11/13/2013 03:45:32 pm

In class we discussed the Texas judge that was left behind by the Republican party. I found this article particularly interesting because I am also someone who has chosen to move away from the republican party and their bigoted way of thought. In the last year, it has become ever more apparent to me that the ideals that were really at play within that political party are not things that I was proud to be associated with. Simply put, I was ashamed to talk politics because I was afraid of being singled out for thinking in that way. In the same way that Judge Key has left the party because I can't agree to be associated with a group that constantly puts down other human beings simply because the think in a different way then themselves. It is also nice to see Judge Key break the sort of air that we see in politics today that is politicians conforming to their parties school of thought, just to maintain their backing. There is no more originality and stand up people in politics. Just two groups of sheep following in the footsteps of their party. My question to you is why do we see a perpetual cycle of politicians falling back inline so as not to loose their parties support? How do we break the cycle so they work together instead of against each other?

Carolina Munoz

11/15/2013 02:29:57 pm

Hello Cory, I think that it's easy for politicians to loose support from the people by committing the same mistakes over and over again. If people saw the flaws in they're political parties and decided to give other individuals the opportunity to do work then there would be change in politics. We need to work together by getting informed on policies and views of politicians by taking interest in the governmental issues and informing one another of options that we have as citizens.

Eric Pham

11/13/2013 03:53:54 pm

We mainly discussed two topics in class today. One is about Judge Key who left Republican Party because he doesn't agree with the party's principle, described as "extremism and bigotry." "I have not left the Republican Party. It left me." said by Judge Key is likely to be. This is my first time seeing something like this happens, and it kinda gives me more hope and belief in government what you mostly read about from the media are all the bad and negative stuffs from our government. Another topic that we talked about is the military interventions in other countries by the United States, and the results that we left behind to those countries. I have to say that the most devastating thing ever in this world is war. It's just a single and simple word "war", but whenever that word is mentioned, it causes sadness, anger, frustration, madness, and hope to many people, especially families and relatives of those soldiers who died or who are currently serving. I really sadden me to know that there are still many wars going on the other side of America. As of right now, there are still over a hundred thousand active troops in more than 150 countries base on a report from our Department of Defense. My question is why do we have so many military involvements in so many countries? Does the government have anything else besides trading, natural resources, or reputation in return?

Kevin Lopez

11/14/2013 12:03:34 pm

Hello Eric,
We actually discussed this out today in class if I am not mistaken. There is still armed forces in these countries because of the United States' interested in their oil supply. The government is being stingy and wants all petroleum to itself and to secure that it is for them, they say people are doing things that are inhumane and then saying how we have to step in and help. But really we are always looking for what is better for us. Like Dr. Crain said, all the actions the US government takes is just to their own benifits.

Kevin Lopez

11/14/2013 12:05:08 pm

Tedrick Rumohr

11/15/2013 02:48:59 am

Hello Eric,

My answer to your first question about why we have so many military involvements in other countries is simple. To quote Katt Williams, "The United States government is composed of a bunch of gangsters!!!" We basically go where we want and do what we want because we can. To tie in your second question, we go into countries to either take natural resources, or to keep our ally countries happy.It's like having a friend that you enjoy being friends with only for what they have. We want to maintain being their friends so we can have access to their stuff. Even if it means going to countries we shouldn't and shooting people up. It's not right, but that's politics.

This is a clip of Katt Williams, but it's VERY EXPLICIT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htrjz6cFz1c

Jazmin Ordaz link

11/13/2013 03:54:15 pm

In class today we were talking about the genocide in Rwanda and how our government didn't even try to help them out and just let them kill each other. I read an article and it said "Beginning on April 6, 1994, Hutus began slaughtering the Tutsis in the African country of Rwanda. As the brutal killings continued, the world stood idly by and just watched the slaughter. Lasting 100 days, the Rwanda genocide left approximately 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers dead." Its insane to me that this went on for 100 days without any military intervention. Another thing in the article I found interesting was that it stated "Men, women, and children were murdered. Since bullets were expensive, most Tutsis were killed by hand weapons, often machetes or clubs. Many were often tortured before being killed. Some of the victims were given the option of paying for a bullet so that they'd have a quicker death.

Also during the violence, thousands of Tutsi women were raped. Some were raped and then killed, others were kept as sex slaves for weeks. Some Tutsi women and girls were also tortured before being killed, such as having their breasts cut off or had sharp objects shoved up their vagina." I just don't understand why that's okay that we just ignored the fact that women and children were being killed and women being so badly tortured. Someone brought up the fact that we didn't intervene because it wouldn't benefit us in anyway if we were to help them. Why do you think they let this go on when they're always intervening in other places? Do you think we only do things to help others because they benefit us in the end or we do it to actually be helpful?

Justine Picar

11/14/2013 06:44:38 am

Hi Jazmin, you bring up some really good questions because those were some things that I have contemplated as well. While the natural disaster in the Philippines isn't really because of political instability or anything like that, it still makes me wonder whether we are reaching out because we actually care or because it will somehow benefit us in the future by keeping them indebted to our kindness.
It really upsets me as well that there are so many other places that our experiencing such horrific violence other than Rwanda or Tibet. It's disappointing to see that rather than use our military power to benefit and help other people, we just tend to sit quietly and only help people where we can see an opportunity to make a profit.

Edward Yang-Cabebe

11/13/2013 03:59:50 pm

Today, in lecture, we talked about a Republican who switched to the Democratic Party and about U.S. aiding other countries. On the topic of Judge Carlo Key, the professor talked about how political parties are different now than they were back then, such as how Republicans was anti-slavery and the Democrats were pro-slavery back then. With political parties having different values over time, it should not be unusual for someone to switch over or, perhaps, see some more in the future. Judge Carlo Key said that the Republican Party had left him, showing that his values did not align with the Republican Party. The other topic in class was about United States aiding other countries. Professor Crain talked about how the United States only really "aid" if they can benefit in someway. The United States also would not get involved in the injustices that China does, since it would be bad (we owe them money and whatnot). For cases like Rwanda, the United States doesn't want to call it "genocide" so the citizens there does not get refugee status to come over/immigrate.
Do you think followers of certain individuals, like Judge Key, would continue to follow them if they had changed their political party/values?
Why is the federal government "aiding" others when there are problems here that should be resolved? Should they?

IngridC

11/13/2013 04:01:40 pm

Today in class we talked a judge name Carlo R. Key, who has left the Republican party. He states that "Make no mistake, I have not left the Republicans. It left me." Some hatred speeches the GOP was making, Carlo believed it wasn't right. Those weren't his values. We all know that republicans are conservative but not to the extreme where they will have hate speeches. Judge Carlo doesn't believe that having to hate on the LGBT community is simply right and should change some of their way of thinking.
CQ: Will the GOP change on what they think about the LGBT?

Cindy Tran

11/14/2013 12:00:19 pm

Hello IngridC,
Actually, I honestly don't believe that the GOP will be changing their views anytime soon. However, due to situations like these, aka former Republicans leaving their parties due to different beliefs, there is going to be change but only in the long, long run. I truly believe that Judge Carlo R. Key isn't the only ex Republican who left his party cause of different values, I believe that there are many more who defend for LGBT rights but are unsure whether or not they should speak up because they fear of being ostracized especially when we live in a society where being deviant or having different views deem you an outcast.

Thanaa Makdsi

11/13/2013 04:03:29 pm

since i`m taking business class and a political science class now, i thought about talking about something that has to do with money and social issue, and that is the crisis of 2008.
it was sad to see banks like JP Morgan not caring about those people who lost jobs and are losing their homes, they didn`t care if they put these people`s houses on auction, for them it means other new people will apply for mortgage and lenders, investors will make tons of money. also it was too bad for those people who were good at paying their mortgage month by month, and still their houses`s value drooped bellow what they bought for just because they live in a neighborhood that is full of auction homes. too good for banks, too bad for people. now JP Morgan is getting criminal charges for the money they took from irresponsible or lets say poor homeowners. the government who was responsible of overseeing these institutions note only scrud up and let the banks on wall street do what ever they like, our government also gave a crazy reason for people to get more stupid by doping the discount rate as low as 1% and that made people start getting loans like crazy because of this low interest rate, it was so stupid when i heard Alan Greenspan the chairman of the Federal Reserve in the Bush administration period, he was saying """"""" WE CAN ALWAYS PRINT MORE MONEY""""" Crazyyy. its really getting hard and hard for people to be safe, we need to educate ore and more people about how this system works, and how to make a wise decisions. i believe we also need to teach young student about the money and political system work.
i wish if just our government is better on allocating its budget in the places that helps us, and secure our money and assets.
do you think that our government is really working for us, or using us to throw its agendas everywhere in the world and on our land?

chris nguyen

11/13/2013 04:07:37 pm

Today and through out the past course of the week we had gone over the military intervention. And non military interventions. For example the chemicals weapons that were supposedly being held in Syria and we had discussed why America had decided to go into Syria to try and find these chemical weapons. Throughout the course of the week last week the sub had mostly talked about what is going on with our projects and how we need to make sure that our projects are to be done. In class today we had gone over a timeline with what has happened up through the 80s through the 90s up until now. And we had gone over things also such had hate speeches that were held and had helped candidates. A judge who had left the republican party because of the racism and sexism. He had stated that he had not left the republican party however the republican party had left him.

John Eusebio

11/13/2013 09:54:39 pm

On Wednesday we focused our lecture on the three different kinds of interventions (but specifically two discussed). This being through aid, trade, and military forces. The focus we had discussing non- military aid was stuff like disaster relief and basic needs, like to the tsunami that happened in the Philippines. We didn't focus too much on trade, but we covered a good amount of military intervention after discussing non military relief. Military mostly being used only if there is a conflict, a government issue, or a war. A problem that we discussed that go hand in hand with military intervention is America's economic gains to pursuing a war. Specifically for oil and natural resources, which is the deep dark truth right? When discussing about this, we brought up previous topics that showed examples of non-economic ventures such as the Rwandan Genocide. The word "genocide" also became a part of discussion since it provides a strong influence to countries that are in need of relief.

Q: Why do you think powerful countries like the US, take the opportunity to plunder resources from war time efforts? How much resources do you think a relief effort takes to help out a country of crisis?

Jorge Talamante

11/15/2013 03:38:43 pm

The same reason were in Afghanistan, is for us to find nuclear weapons, but they didn't find any. Now were in Syria trying to find these chemical weapons. Were going to be there longer then we say. Just another reason to stay "fighting" and having the U.S. talked about more. We shouldn't be there in there first place, they have no hard evidence of the weapons. Just another excuse to begin another war. and have our people die for no reason.

Kevin Lopez

11/14/2013 12:34:23 am

Today in class we talked about the espionage of the NSA. That's a very frightening thought. How could the government break the constitution just cause they are trying to surveillance the people. That's bad. Really disturbing if you think about it. They monitor not only your phone conversations but what you research and text and where you are. They see what you waist your money in and how much you have and withdraw and all your past records. The fact is this is unconstitutional and just not right. This country not only monitors and spies on their own people but other countries, government, and movement groups. We are not even secure in our own homes. Who knows what they put on antennas or even in other things installed in our homes. Honestly I think that's scary and to come out and tell the country like Sweden did is brave and very thoughtful.

Question: What other way could Sweden could have taken without getting in trouble ?

Sam Kuhlmann

11/14/2013 02:01:28 am

Today in the 8:30 class we watched an interview involving Edward Snowden when he was in Hong Kong. We all know Edward Snowden is the “whistleblower” of the NSA when he leaked out information on what the NSA was doing. The government is now trying to find out where he is. Ms. Crain asked us as a class how much risk we would take if the outcome directly benefits us. I found this to be an interesting question because of the topic we were talking about. Edward Snowden is giving up his freedom to make sure the people know what is going on in this country. He now lives in constant fear because he wanted the people to know that they are being watched. So, my question is Ms. Crain’s question to us. How big of a risk would you take if the outcome benefits you or your family?

Flora Tang

11/14/2013 09:05:41 am

Hi Sam!

So your question is a pretty serious one, what risk would I, as a citizen of the United States, take? I personally, have people I love and are close to me, so I wouldn't take a very large risk. However, I would like to be able to at least agree with a point of view that is a serious threat to our community. I would be fine with taking the risk of protesting for GMO Labeling and Prop 37, but I do not believe I would take the risk of protesting against something more dangerous, such as the different things that the government does to our citizens or other countries, many of which we talked about in class.

Justine Picar

11/14/2013 06:38:27 am

In class on Wednesday, we discussed the U.S. and its Foreign Policy with other nations. I found it really interesting, disappointing, but not surprising that the only time the U.S. would intervene in a humanity crisis like a genocide or a war, they would only do so if there was a benefit for them. The genocide in Tibet, something our class touched on, have not obtained refugee status and gotten our help because China holds our debt, for example. Syria, on the other hand contains oil, a commodity that benefits the U.S.

This just makes me wonder:
How much of what we do is actually a selfless benefit? In light of the natural disaster in the Philippines, do our offers to help our fellow man by giving relief funds or medicine and supplies have a hidden agenda that we don't know about?

Hakwoo Kim

11/15/2013 06:37:36 am

Hi Justine, I also found this lecture very interesting and something to think about.

I think there are not many acts that we do with a selfless benefit, but I had to question myself, if it is possible to help those people in needs without thinking about our own benefits as well. When I put myself in those leaders' positions, I think it is necessary to think about the benefit for this country in this system of world. Nations are seeking for their own benefits and competing with each other, and how you do in this competition influences your people's life and prosperity. People are crying about the high rate taxes and low fund on education and other necessary stuff. Our budget is pretty tight to take care of our own country. With this notion, I think it is very hard to help those in needs without considering our benefits as well. There are so many people out there waiting for some kind of help. The U.S. alone cannot help all those people but only a part of them.

In my opinion, help without a selfless benefit can be achieved if the world comes together to recognize and help those people. Then, perhaps nations can gather resources from all the nations and distribute it according to the needs of those who need help. It's just a mere thought, and I'm sure there is already this kind of help that I don't know much about, but I think it is necessary to think about the benefit in the current system of the world and society.

Hakwoo Kim

11/14/2013 07:02:59 am

The class today was mainly about Edward Snowden, who leaked the classified information to the public as he thought it is the public who should decide whether or not certain information and government actions are necessary. The most part he revealed was about the government surveillance, and we had a little discussion about it. It seems very tough to decide whether surveillance is necessary or not and the degree of it. First, I didn't really think that surveillance itself is a problem and should be eliminated. The issue here seems like if the use of it is violating the rights of people or not. As surveillance can help solve and prevent crimes and threats from terrorists. However, the problem seems to be that the government is watching the information that people do not want them to watch, and it turned out the government was doing all these surveillance act in a secretive way. For that part, I agree with Edward that citizens should know what the government is doing and be able to determine what is necessary or not. But then I question myself, if we have to know all the information what the government is doing and influence the decision of it. Decisions like this require intense discussion about the needs and impacts of it, and as we do not have enough time fully dedicating ourselves to that process, we elect the representatives to do so. As thinking over the issue, I feel like what we really have to focus is not eliminating the use of surveillance but the system where the governments' actions are well checked. As the government is abusing its power, the problem seems like the system where checking and balancing does not function well.
In the video, Edward mentions it takes a great risk for citizens to raise the issue that questions and criticizes the actions of the government, and we discussed about what risk exactly we have to undergo. This question reminded me of the things I saw in the video "The End of America"--the black list things that limit one's activities and the police arresting people. As we are already being watched, people, at least I, have some fear of being "attacked" by the government. Same thing here, it seems like the issue is the government's abuse of power. Surveillance seems like just one mean that supports the abuse.
Although it was a brave move of Edward, I had to ask myself if his act is acceptable. Technically, what he did is breaking the law--leaking classified information. Is breaking the law acceptable if the reason for it seems justice? He could have raised the issue and awareness by different way that doesn't involve revealing the classified information. The law and the system is the promise and rule made by society and by people. If the justice to be done, it should be done within the frame of the law, or should it...? So the focus, I think, should be placed on building a system and law that ensures checking on goverment's activities and the preventing the skewed political power. Perhaps this is what Edward means by saying policy is the only way we can ensure.

Question:
1) How can we ensure that the government is not abusing its power, and when it's obvious, how can we stop the government from abusing the power?
2) Is the act of Edward just--breaking the law for the righteous cause?

Anna Baucus link

11/14/2013 10:15:28 am

TAFTA

Has anybody read this yet? I'm ready to burn some tires. I'm not usually a Huffington Post reader, but it's the first place I saw this story surface, ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/trade-deal-would-elevate_b_4143626.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false ) and I honest to god could not believe what I was reading.
Is it possible this is a hoax?
"This "investor-state" enforcement system would grant foreign firms the power to drag the U.S. and EU governments before extrajudicial tribunals -- comprised of three private attorneys -- that would be authorized to order unlimited taxpayer compensation for domestic health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies the corporations claim undermine their "expected future profits." And, there would be no outside appeal."
No accountability? That is insane and dictatorial.

Looking at the economic justifications for an act like this, I am very curious to ask the class if anyone has understood/followed any of the following lines of reasoning behind how this act could somehow show principle benefit to anyone or anything other than large multinational corporations? I'm not sure that's a group that needs more help - they seem to be doing quite well as is, and a reduction to zero of accountability, not to mention the horrific nature it would have to further separate resources and divide them by country and within classes is nothing short of horrifying.

My question for the class:
HOW DO WE STOP THIS? My instinct is to riot, cut off the freeways and burn some tires - but in the States I think we'd get shot for interrupting traffic like that. Any better recommendations? What congresspeople are speaking out against this? What about that nonviolent protest list Ms. Crain handed out? How do we make De Anza students more aware of this??

Some links:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=6037
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/global/global-trade/tpp-and-tafta-free-trade-with-a-high-price/
http://www.citizen.org/documents/investor-state-chart.pdf
http://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/standing-committees/labor-and-economic-development/free-trade-and-federalism.aspx

Ho Wai "Howard" Mok

11/14/2013 11:59:58 am

We were talking about the non-military and military issue. It is interesting that aid and trade are belongs that non-military issue. I mean, I am actually involved in lots of non-military events. Since I am getting financial aid from the university, that is part of the aid. Besides, not only am I getting aid, but also I am giving aid. I just donated $10 to emergency relief in the Philippines through Red Cross. I think they really need help at this point. On the other hand, for the trade, I am sure every transactions that I made through retail store is related to politics. most of the products are outsourcing because it does save a lot by doing that even though the government may tax a bunch from that. At this point, I don't have a chance to serve the military, so all I can be related to it is all these non-military events.

Ho Wai "Howard" Mok

11/14/2013 12:01:29 pm

My questions is that back to today's lecture "Is there a way really can fight for our own interest without putting ourselves in risk?"

Matthew Kaufmann

11/14/2013 01:15:36 pm

In class we discussed about the controversial topic regarding Edward Snowden and the U.S. government's surveillance on American citizens. Beginning in June of 2013, Edward Snowden informed the American public about the mass surveillance going on within the United States. Citizens were outraged to find out that their constitutional rights have been undermined from illegal searches and sieges by spy agencies.
But Intelligence agencies reject allegations explaining that the phone tapping and other forms of spying are in fact constitutional, as such programs were approved congressionally and judicially for the protection of national security.
After the remarks from Snowden, government officials like David Cameron, UK prime minister, explained that Snowden has made it now even more difficult to keep our country and citizens safe (America and UK). Although it may be keeping citizens safe from terrorists, it is not keeping them safe from their own government.
Yes, the government is taking such extreme precautions to keep national security and American citizens safe, but there has got to be another method the government can take without invading everyones privacy to this extent.

What are better ways of finding terrorists than the methods the government are using now?

Sarah Jane Estrada

11/14/2013 01:35:24 pm

Today in class we talked about surveillance and the NSA. The biggest point that really struck me and has always struck me is that they keep boatloads of information on us in order to use it later against us. So if I do anything slightly wrong or have any secrets, they can use that against me later in life. Honestly, thats what is frightening to me because I never want to be put in a position where they do that to me. I do not like the idea of my every keystroke being recorded and saved to be used for malicious purposes. I think something needs to be done about that. We need to fight for less intrusion in our lives and fight for less government oversight. I don't really like the idea of being looked at. I'm really big on privacy so it irks me to think about it.
Today we also talked about the risks we were willing to take for what we believe in. I talked about risking everything as long as no one I loved would get hurt. I'd do whatever it took to stand up for something I believe in, but I would hate for my actions to hurt those that I cared about. Thats my limit I guess. It was interesting to hear what other people said. My partners said they would post up on Facebook and do stuff like that, and I would too. I always talk about the stuff we learn in our poll class and try and educate people on what is actually going on.
Does anyone else do the same? What would you risk?

Carolina Munoz

11/14/2013 01:57:02 pm

Today in class we saw the video that came viral on the Edward Snowden case. I didn't know much about him up until today's lecture and it was weird to discover about the power computer science and analysts have. I didn't know that the whole “Big Brother” thing was such a big deal and that we were literally being under surveillance constantly. I know that there's a lot of people that say they would have either done what Snowden did and others that say they wouldn't have. I feel like surveillance is necessary in order to keep civilians safe and out of harms way. However, I do feel like we should be able to have freedom speech without the fear of retaliation due to the first amendment. It's not that hard to know what is wrong or right in most cases, but I know that at the end of the day we need to act in our best interest and discover within ourselves what we find to be right. Professor Crain mentioned that she herself has gone through some unfortunate situations were she felt unsafe when she tried to speak out against things she felt weren't right. This leads me to propose the questions: How involved should the government be in monitoring citizens? Is it possible for the citizens to come to an agreement on how much is enough? Should we hold the government accountable for the things that we aren't comfortable with, or should we seek regulations from places like banks, internet providers and things of this nature to provide us with more privacy rights?

Eric Ortiz

11/14/2013 02:36:38 pm

So today in class we watched a very important video that opened my eyes on how the government really is. Edward Snowden had a interview with a guy that was involved in the NSA. One thing that he said was that the government has made decisions that the community should have as a group. He also speaker about the surveillance that we are under. He talks about the ways they do it. Some companies focus on different areas whether that be cellular internet and even bank accounts. Then Proffesor Crain talked about how this man was willing to take a risk to educate the community. Not just with losing his job but also with him being in risk of being take down. It's just unfair how people that actually want to speak the truth are scared due to the things the government will do to them.

Question 1
Will you be willing to take a risk like this man did just to let the public know the truth? Why or why not

Roger Aguilar

11/15/2013 02:10:23 am

That interview also made me realized that the government is willing to do anything to cover up all the things they are doing without telling the public. To me, it seems unreal that the government of arguably the best country in the world behaves like a bully. if you talk, ill punch you kind of mentality. Nevertheless, I praise this man for coming out and informing us the truth about the NSA and what were they up to. If I was in the same situation as him, I would too collect my proof and inform the public what they deserve to know as citizens of this country. I personally would risk it all, even my own life.

Chantel Luu

11/14/2013 04:00:25 pm

Earlier this week, our lecture was started with an article about a Texan judge who withdrew from the Republican party because of its blatant racism and loss direction when it came to the greater good. In the wake of the government shutdown, this particular judge had had enough. This article was especially inspiring to me because most people I know, though they see an injustice, they simply ignore it and go on with their lives because it is what is easiest. It is easy to turn a blind eye rather than oppose and take action. Texas isn't known for racial equality and for a judge to take a stand and withdraw from his political party is heartwarming.
Critical question: Do you think that either side--Democratic and Republican--are completely correct in their politics? What would be some irrationalities of either particular side?

John Eusebio

11/16/2013 01:48:13 am

I think both sides have to coexist even though there are downsides to each. You can't be too right wing or too much of the left, so I guess what they agree to disagree on can be their center divide.
Irrationalities that I can think of on the spot can be republicans pro life, instead of pro choice. But you can't also be too right wing as a democrat, not everyone wants to increase spending and raise taxes.
So hence, I don't think the politics that we have now can exist without both parties being there to balance each other out.

dong june kim

11/15/2013 05:02:35 pm

Today, 7:30 am class we watched video about Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden leaked out information on what the NSA was doing. It takes much risks to leak out the information of government. But i believe he leaked out information for people to let us know what is going on in this country. I personally think its a very good thing but I felt really bad that he gave up his freedom for that.I found this to be an interesting question because of the topic we were talking about. Edward Snowden is giving up his freedom to make sure the people know what is going on in this country.
My question is was it worth it to leak out the information for people even to give up his freedom for that?

Week 8

Leave a Reply.

Poli 1

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Week 8

Leave a Reply.

Poli 1

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS