A Well Informed 21st Century Citizen

"A well informed 21st century citizen is a person who an access all areas of technology and know how to utilize them. They also are aware of current events and happenings."

That was my first rendition of what a well informed 21st centiry citizen was, I still mainly agree with what I said because in todays world, one has to be cable to access and utilize all areas of technology to be truely successful. Also, one should be aware of current events, in the way if talking to people in public one does not sound like they were living under a rock and can have an in depth conversation with another. Another thing I'm adding is one should participate somehow in politics, from simply voting to going to rallys. If one shows some kind of interaction, they will gain knowledge about candidates and current issues. So overall my opinion really hasnt changed except about the fact that people should engage somehow in politics, but all in all that is my definition of a well informed citizen

Final Exam - Blake

Why should the government should not cut spending on advanced weapon technologies?
1.) Reaper/UAV
2.) Stealth Technologies: B-2 Spirit, F-22 Raptor
3.) Abrams Tank Division  

In America we have by far the most advanced military in the world, and I believe we should keep it that way. In the recent years the government is trying to slice military spending by a dramatic amount. Which definitely has pros and cons but there can be alternatives to cutting spending like having a soldier capacity, because one soldier can be a very large expense. And if we stop funding on weapons technologies, America can lag behind other countries and lose our seat on the throne of most powerful. So I am going to narrow it down a little bit and cite three examples to why the government should continue spend on military development. First off, the Reaper/UAV Program (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), secondly, stealth technologies (B-2 Spirit/F-22 Raptor), and lastly, the Abrams Tank Division (M1, M1A1, and M1A2). All three of these areas of spending are so crucial to the military because all of these products are in use today and they keep American soldiers safe and protected from the enemy.

In today's warfare scene the best type of fighting is fighting with out using soldiers but rather man operated machines. This way, instead of sending in a platoon of soldiers to engage the enemy we can have two pilots hundreds of miles away send in the MQ-9 Reaper. The Reaper falls into the UAV class (unmanned aerial vehicle), the Air Force and the Navy have many different uses for them. You have the Grey Eagle which the main purpose is for scouting and surveying possible targets and to assist ground soldiers. Next up is the Predator which is the predecessor to the Reaper, it’s main role is attacking and supporting ground troops. Another positive about UAVs, when they are at their cruising altitude they are blind to the unassisted eye and you cannot hear them. For the enemy that means one second you are up to no good and the next an AGM missile has just struck your position. With this affect only a small few have been shot down. And when you look at the broad view, if we sent in armed soldiers to the Reapers missions instead, the military would’ve sent home a lot of folded American Flags. I believe the government should continue the funding for the UAV project because it is way more efficient than foot soldiers and it saves lives. Currently the Government is spending 2 billion on UAVs and that could possibly increase but with more of these aircrafts, they can replace more soldiers so the cost could balance. So i think its a no brainer to keep spending a revolutionary program that doesn't put soldiers at risk and performs their missions with great success.

Another program that should continued to be funded by the government is the Stealth Fighter/Bomber Division. Stealth technology has been so crucial to the military the past few decades. With its creation during the Cold War and its great success in the middle east, the Air Force could always rely on the stealth bombers/fighters to get the toughest jobs done. Although the stealth program is expensive, the planes rarely ever get destroyed so you only pay for a few and they last a long time. The only way to see a stealth fighter is to physically see one because the aircrafts are invisible to radar, and at 40,000 feet the naked eye cannot see the plane lurking above. With this invisibility comes safety, since nobody can find or see the plane, the pilots are safe under the cloak of stealth technology. So I think it's ludicrous to not continue to fund the stealth fighter/bomber program because they keep the pilots safe, they do not need to be replaced that often, and they almost always come home with a mission success. Currently the U.S. is spending just over ten billion dollars on the stealth division, mainly going towards replacing the F-22 Raptor with the F-35 Lightning. But in our arsenal now is the B-2 Spirit Bomber and the F-22 Raptor Multi-purpose Fighter. Both have large rap-sheets of success and the things they are able to do are phenomenal and that's why the government needs to not cut funding to this branch of the budget.

And the last reason to keep military funding up is the M1 Division of Abrams Tanks. The first Abrams tank entered service in 1980 replacing the outdated M60 tank. Since then, the Abrams has been the go to vehicle for land strikes and is the muscle of the Army. The M1 is crawling with technology, from its high-tech weaponry to its top secret armor, the Abrams is the most advanced tank on the battlefield. But with all of the technology comes amazing safety and protection. In the entire Gulf War of the 1990s no Abrams tank was fully destroyed by enemy fire and there was only one fatality in an Abrams tank throughout the war. To me, that is absolutely amazing! You would think that with such small amount of fatalities of tanks or soldiers that the tanks did not see much action, but they saw plenty. The main reason the Abrams had such good success was because they were up against very out dated old Soviet Tanks that lacked superior firepower and technology. You could say that the Abrams is only good against lesser tanks but the Abrams is still having great success in today's current skirmishes in the middle east. Currently the Government is planning to shut down the plant that produces these tanks in the years 2013-2015 so ultimately ending the further creation of these magnificent vehicles. Why they are doing it? To try and save 1 Billion dollars, but feel there are other ways to do that than stop producing such a revolutionary machine that saves American lives but gets the job done.

So all in all, the Government should not cut spending towards advanced weaponry because they are very powerful, they keep the operators very safe, and all of them get great results when put on the battlefield. The three things I am talking about is the Reaper UAV, B-2 Spirit Bomber/F-22 Raptor, and the Abrams M1 Tank division. Those sections are three good reasons why the Government should not stop funding to the advancement of weapon technologies. Because to me I want America to continue having the most powerful military because in the future I do not want to speak Chinese or Russian....

Sources:

1.) Wikipedia (used a bit for each section)

2.) http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/index.asp

3.) http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/tracked/abrams.html

4.) http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/

5.) http://defense-update.com/products/p/predatorB.htm

Super PACs and their Use

For the past few decades PACs and Super PACs have been a part of every election since the creation of them. Their main focus is to persuade people who are the fence and to push them to the side they want them to be on. They put out attacking adds against the opposing candidate. They do not usually put out adds that support there own candidate but there are some out there. PACs are known for putting out the controversial adds to target the enemy. Also PACs and super PACs can raise a very large to an infinite amount of money for the campaign. The government shouldn't start to regulate these PACs because one, they haven't before so why start now: two, if people want to donate then why stop them: three, and if they are not doing anything illegal don't bother them. So in my personal opinion, before the PACs were not as big so the government did pay to much attention to them and let them be. But now the PACs are so influential and powerful the government thinks they should slow them down, but why? Everything grows to be huge in America and PACs are one of those things and yes I am positive they will get even bigger. Because the population will continue to grow so the PACs will have to get bigger to reach as much people as possible. So just because they are getting bigger does not mean they need to have more rules. Also because PACs can raise such large amount money the government has strict rules about how much money they can receive, but why? the government should not tell how much money a person can donate, because money is a form of speech, and in America I believe we have free speech. So if the person is willing to donate 25 million then let them! So the government should not interfere with the donations that people wan to make because that can violate our 1st amendment right. And lastly, the PACs are not doing anything illegal for the most part, some bend the rules a bit but nothing really violates the law. Yeah there adds are mean and somewhat offensive but they are very legal. But there are some cases where the PACs violate some of the rules with donations and being affiliated with a candidate but that shouldn't mean the government should get heavily involved. So in the end the Government should not interfere with PACs because they have not interfered before, they need to let the PACs raise their own money, and they are not breaking any laws.

Media: Newstainment

I  believe that Newstainment can be a positive trend for both sides of the political spectrum because it provides information from a bias point of view, it is very funny, and the info is mainly fact based. First off, just because a show is funny does not mean you can not learn anything from it, in fact you can learn a lot from these shows. But there is a catch, the information you get from these shows is mainly from a bias that is loyal to either the right or the left side of the political spectrum. So if you are a part of the republican party you can watch the O'Reilly Factor or the Colbert Report and if your a democrat you can watch the Daily Show or the Rachel Maddow Show. But two shows are particular funny and there's one for each side, the Colbert Report and the Daily Show are both very very funny, they base there jokes off of current political news so you still can learn and laugh at the same time. So a lot of teenagers watch these two shows mainly because there funny but this can be there first main exposure to politics. And lastly the information is mainly true on all shows it just depends on how the show portrays, whether its good or bad. Because good news for the democrats and possibly mean bad news for the republicans and the opposite. So all in all I believe Newstainment is good because they provide info, they are funny, and they are mainly factual.

Romneys Running Mate

Since Romney has not yet picked a running mate yet, I'll explain who he should pick based off his own traits. The key traits I'll be focusing on is that he is a white male, he is mormon, and he is not really a "game-changing" candidate. First off, America has had plenty of white male presidents in the past, actually all but one! So what I think is an important thing for Romney to do is pick a mate that is some sort of a minority whether a woman or another race. Because by doing so that can gain votes from that selected group or even more. Also, what makes Romney somewhat of a game changer is that he is a Mormon and it would be the first time if he was elected there would be a Mormon president. So what he should do to counteract this so he does not lose the republican catholic or Lutheran vote he should have either a catholic or Lutheran running mate. And lastly Romney is a very typical candidate who just looks like a president and the public wants to see more than that. So what Romney needs to do for that is to find someone who really sticks out, because the public likes people who stand out. And so far most of the potential candidates for vice president are what the press calls game changers. So with those three things in mind, my personal favorite is Marco Rubio. He fits all the traits I think that Romney needs he is of Hispanic race, he is a catholic, and he is somewhat of a game changer because people say he does not have much experience but he is a senator of Florida which is an important swing state that is a key battleground for the presidency. So if Romney could gain a major Hispanic vote along with the Florida vote, it would be very key for him. So I believe that Mitt Romney should pick Marco Rubio as a running mate for the 2012 presidential election.

http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/ (Marco Rubio's) website

Electoral College Solutions

Personally I believe our electoral college system works pretty well but, there is one thing I would like to change about it. I agree with the fact that based on population you get your electoral delegates but I disagree with the fact that every state gets an automatic two delegates because they represent the senators of each state. Because I believe fully on population vote, its not fair for Wyoming to get an automatic two when they should only have one, this makes there vote "worth" than a person's vote in lets say California. By doing this it should eliminate that small chance that the president would win the electoral college yet not the popular vote. Because with the smaller states they get those automatic two votes if the state was won so it seems unfair for that to happen. So by doing what I propose, the nominee should always win both the electoral vote and the popular vote. That would eliminate all of those crabby annoying people who would complain about how unfair the system is. And lastly another good thing about taking the automatic two votes is that since there will be 100 electoral votes taken away from the college they can re-calculate on how many states should get electoral votes so for example if before it was one vote for every 100,000 people now it could be 1 vote for every 80,000 people (just an example not accurate). So that is the last positive thing to my proposed solution to fixing the electoral college.

Election Improvements

My personal opinion about the current state of elections is that they are pretty well off as they are. But yet there can still be room for improvement. One area I would think needs to be changed is during the primary season it should be easier to get on the ballot in every state, it should not be about how much money or signatures you need to poor in the state it should be about the ideas and views of the candidate but he should still get signatures to get on the ballot to show that he is a legit candidate; but yes money will still be involved just not as much. Another personal opinion I have is that they should find out who the two candidates are earlier than what they do so instead of Aug-Sept. it should be like June or May so that it gives the candidates more time to market themselves and it would not be so dang crazy come October early November. I thought of this idea coming from a citizen who gets very sick of a gazillion adds for the election, so by extending the amount of time opens more doors to space out your adds have a few debates and overall not make the election season so damn crazy. This idea goes along with another thought and it is almost in affect today and that is a price ceiling. Candidates should spend no more than 100 million dollars for there campaign, whether they get it from the gov or not. This is more than the 75 million the gov. would give you for the campaign but this cap will make the candidate be more precise and logical on how they advertise over the longer election time so instead of just one or two months they will have to advertise 4 to 5 months and this will make them budget the money better and in the end the candidate who can budget there money better should be able to come out and win the election and maybe even budget the economy better! So those are a few ideas I have on improving the elections.