#12 Final Summary/Reaction

As I have concluded my research I am beginning to analyze the results. I am a little overwhelmed when analyzing because as I knew prior to this semester project, politics is not black and white. Someone can be republican while still believing that the government should have stronger gun legislation. Through these mixed responses it is difficult to weave through and estimate whether they are one party or another. I have also concluded that many of the results from the 14-22 age group will answer questions based on their exposure in their generation. For example, since I fall into the 14-22 age group, I have witnessed the awful massacre shootings that have taken place over the past couple of years. As this number of shootings increase per year, I can, with a well researched assumption conclude that we might need stronger gun legislation. This belief compared to someone who is in the 40-60 year range will be different because adults may have more traditional thoughts based on what they have seen on the news in their teenage years. Since younger people in the 21st century are exposed to more gun violence than what the 40-60 year olds experienced when they were younger, it changes their perspective on what they believe, therefore, having a democratic belief on gun legislation. I have also noticed a correlation with 40-60 year olds between the job their parents had versus the job they have or have had. Many whose parents had a white collar job, also have/had a white collar job. Similarly, with blue collar jobs, many whose parents had a blue collar job, they also have/had a blue collar job. Those with parents who did not work, also don't work. It was interesting to see how the social class may not have changed regarding jobs. In the survey, adults usually stayed in the job range that their parents had.

As far as my hypothesis goes, I am on target with the prediction that adults will have a greater autonomy compared to teenagers who may be mixed based on their position in society and their current environment. The teenagers that took my surveyed proved to be more mixed about different political beliefs, I am assuming half of it is because they don't really know the background of a lot of policies. I am also assuming that their guesses are based off of their experience in the 21st century. Teenagers now a days are live in a less traditional society compared to adults who lived in a more conservative society. Today teenagers are exposed to sex, violence, and drugs on TV, which is what you would rarely see back in the 20th century. I believe the environment of the 21st century is what influenced the teenagers who took my survey. They are exposed to the increase of massacre shootings on the news and they are exposed to the drugs that are viewed in many TV shows and movies. Many teenagers are also probably listening to their parents conversations regarding money, and may agree because they see the point of view of their parents' situation. It all depends on environment and what situation a person is in.

After this semester project I feel as though I have a more comprehensive overview of what my topic entails. I have understood the sociological background of different political debates, while also understanding that politics is not black and white. Through this semester project I have also noticed how the evolving social change impacts political beliefs and what that may bring in future generations. Understanding politics is not short and concise, you have to have an open mind and understand that not everything is two sided. There are many different interpretations on many different debates and you have to make sure that you do your research before you hold an opinion. It's safe to say that I am not scared of politics anymore, I know how to analyze date more clearly and how to identify the different political views on different topics. I have understood my topic and now am applying it to the people of society. My results are successful and it gave me great insight into learning about my topic on a deeper level.

#11 Revised Summary/Plan/Update

As I have generated my survey questions, I am beginning to send it out to those within the 14-22 and 40-60 age group. So far, as only a few people have responded, I have been seeing what I have expected. My questions start out straight forward from asking what age range the reader is to what certain beliefs they hold in specific topics. Through these questions I can gather background information and see if it correlates to their beliefs. In my survey I am asking what political belief a person holds while also making them check off their age range; so through that I can already apply it to my hypothesis. I am seeing how some younger responders do not fully know about some debate topics such as ObamaCare, so it is interesting to see what political belief they click. They might click republican because they have heard their parents talk negatively about how they are going to have to start paying extra money for healthcare now. What I also have to be careful of during this research period is to not just label people as a republican or democrat. Many people seem to fall between the political parties, such as believing in a democratic based policy while still being a republican. I have to take this concept into consideration and understand that it is not just a black and white concept. Overall, being in the middle of my research, the results that I am receiving are parallel with my stated hypothesis that I have indicated in my previous post. I am excited to see if future responses shift the path!

#10 Strategy/ Plan for Research

After thinking about what my plan will be I have decided to construct an online survey gathering information about which political party people fall into. I will be using the two main political parties for my research: republicans and democrats. I will be aiming this survey to people in the age range of 14-22 years old and 40-60 years old, not excluding any gender. These persons can be involved in jobs, school, or retirement. Through this information, I can hopefully get an idea where young students stand in the political parties vs. where more stable incomes stand. This can also highlight whether or not a student is being biased based on their parent's political belief. Through my extensive research I gathered last quarter, my hypothesis is that younger students tend to vote more democratic because of what is acceptable in the 21st Century versus what was not acceptable in the 20th century. I am also guessing that the younger people surveyed will be more biased based on their parents belief, compared to adults who will most likely be an equal mix of both political parties. I am excited to see the results and see if they match up with what I am predicting!

#9 Suggested Research Method

As I am beginning to narrow down ideas on the direction of where my summary of research project is going, I have concluded that I will be constructing a survey regarding where people fall in the different political parties. Through this survey I will create questions that relate to where young people scale in terms of political views and if they tend to be more biased compared to older people who have greater autonomy since they are in a different situations.

#8: Summary of Research

Throughout my research on different political topics I dug into the history of different debates and where they were sprouting from. Each political controversy has an underlying history that contributed to the outcomes. Congress tries, or hopefully, tries to make structures that help benefit the people of the nation. Many times, just as I explored in the gun debate, laws are created from a new born freedom and the fear of being re-oppressed. Current events in history change the way the American people think when drafting legislations, thus creating problems in the future when society evolves. 

There will always be a fresh news story in the headlines or a re occurring topic that can't be settled. Whichever, the case, you can always find the root of the problem and see how it has developed over time. There are multiple interpretations and opinions in the sub topics of politics and by breaking apart the history of these debates you can discover the sociological structures behind them. By relating the structures of politics to the structures of humans, I saw a pattern form between groups of people. These groups, or major parties, are divided into what is most well known as democrats and republicans. Each political party has a certain "way of living" that is stigmatized into each individual. When I broke apart each political piece, I would research what each party represented and why they held such beliefs. Through this, I've discovered that many times the republican side is more corporate and conservative, however, I also realized that the democratic party tends to favor minorities because of the increased votes they then can receive. Each party in relation to the topics I studied were relevant because of their reactions to the laws, which gave me a better idea of the behavior each party presented. 

Not only was I just analyzing a political piece, but I was examining it through a sociological lens that viewed state and society together and how they function as a whole. Our world is built around politics, and I discovered that we need an individual to take control and create laws that will keep our society in order. I also noticed that if the people of America are in complete odds with a legislation formed, then they also come up with creative ways to express such disapproval. Such as, the Berkeley bake sale, which demonstrated each students' political view and how they felt about the laws placed. The Affirmative Action was created only a couple years after segregation formally ended, which helped benefit the degraded African Americans. I came to the conclusion, however, that years later we can see that such laws are no longer needed and can create a sort of counter racism. We wouldn't have thought that way so many years ago when the law was first enacted, but since society evolved, so has our ways of thinking. Yes, racism still exists today, but not with such severity as when segregation was named constitutional. Through different legislations, one can see the social change that occurred from when a law was first establish to when it starts to fade in society. 

In conclusion, one should not fear politics. I have lost my sense of uneasiness through learning of the different political topics, and found my own voice in the crazy soundtrack. I faced politics head on and learned so much through my research that I feel as though I can participate in it more openly in society. Through my developed opinions on many debates, I learned the beginnings of this topic and how it affects our society sociologically. You can't just study politics head on, you have to study an individual part of it, like its structures, and then progress from there. Through the first step, I have uncovered the basics of political science and how it develops in relation to society. 

#7 Understanding: The Ukraine Situation

The Olympics went without a hitch, however, someone decided to turn the political switch on right when it ended. Wherever I go, whenever I turn on the Tv, the news is reporting about Crimea, Ukraine. Since this topic is being analyzed in every which way possible, I wanted to gain my own perspective of what is actually going on. After much needed research, I understood that president Vladimir Putin, of Russia, is trying to "take over", Crimea, which is part of Ukraine. The reason why Russia is trying annex this region of Ukraine is because they are trying to take advantage of a political instability in the country. Crimea was originally part of Russia, but Russia gave the region to Ukraine in the 1950's. President Putin grabbed the opportunity to take back that region of Ukraine, maybe because he felt that it "really belonged to Russia". Since Crimea is in close proximity to Russia, it makes it easier for Russian military force to enter, which is what they are currently doing.  The whole debate on this problem is that everyone is looking to America, the leader of the free world, on what to do.

Let's look at this sociologically, everyone is looking at America on what to do with this situation. Many believe that America is a strong democracy that has the ability to help out with the world's problems. Basically, in this situation, Russia is breaking international law. Although Crimea has close ties with Russia, it is still part of another country; Putin can't just claim that region for his own. Many on the right side of this debacle are critical of Obama's actions, claiming that they are weak and that he is not enforcing how important this issue is to Putin. Many believe that Obama needs to clarify to Putin the repercussions that will develop out of his actions if he decides to annex Crimea. However, the left side sees this as an important issue that leads to an unclear solution, so what more can Obama do? We are not going to get into a war with Russia and negotiating hasn't proved to be successful. One option that Obama can choose to proceed with is implementing economic sanctions. Economic sanctions can be briefly described as various forms of trade barriers and restrictions on financial transactions. If other countries join in this threatening economic stand, then it will punish Russia and force them to pull their troops out of Crimea. However, if America stands alone then Russia will not feel threatened and will continue to annex Crimea. Putin is impersonating a child and seeing how far he can go until he is stopped by a greater authority. If a child has parents that are lenient on punishments, then that child will continue to misbehave. However, if the parents of a child are more strict on moral issues, the child will be more hesitant to disobey in fear of being put in "time out". In a way, Putin is just testing the American leaders' political ability. Putin has to realize that he isn't hoarding a toy that doesn't belong to him, but land that belongs to another country.

#6 Understanding: Legalizing Marijuana Debate

This weeks political topic is more current: legalizing marijuana. I was particularly excited for this weeks contentious topic. Every since this news story was reported, I was eager to start writing about it. Recently a young girl scout, Danielle Lei, has been banned from selling cookies outside of medical pot shops in San Francisco. As many know, after using the substance of cannabis, one can get the sensation of feeling hungry. Lei, reasoned that she would gain a lot of profit by setting up her stand outside of medical marijuana shops. However, supervisors thought this action was "inappropriate" and not safe for young girls to be selling their cookies outside of adult-oriented businesses. Similar actions of Lei had been taken in such places as Denver, Colorado. As we know, Colorado has legalized the use of cannabis. Many are irritated that such a use of profit is banned in places where marijuana or medical marijuana is used. Their rational is that hey if it's legal then why not be able to economically benefit? Others don't like this because they feel as though it could lead down to an unsafe road for the girl scouts selling the cookies, such that it could influence them to take part in the use of marijuana.

Lets look at this sociologically; if a state decides to legalize the use of marijuana, then all persons should be able to benefit from that law. If a state determines that they don't want people, such as girl scouts, to economically gain from the legalization of pot, then they are showing hypocritical actions. While I don't believe that cannabis should be legalized in any state, I do feel that if it is, people should be able to gain what they want from it, especially since the substance has only been shown to be a stimulus and not as a benefit to society in any other form. A state or authority can't shut down someone who is profiting from the legalization of either medical or non medical marijuana because it can be potentially "dangerous". It was state's initial decision to legalize it in the first place, so it sends off a contradictory message: why shouldn't a person be able to use it to their advantage if it's legal? If an authority figure is worried about a young girl getting into the use of legalized cannabis, then why is it legalized? Many can't see how marijuana can benefit a person, especially because of how abused it is in our society, but Lei ingeniously showed how it could be used to her advantage. Through Lei's entrepreneurial skills she demonstrated economic perspective by showing a rational way to benefit from marijuana other than just consuming it to make a point. The background of the legalizing marijuana debate is that many argue that marijuana should be legalized because cigarettes are legal. In that case, those people think that cigarettes are the same in proportion to marijuana, however, it can also be seen that cigarettes are not mind altering substances in the sense that it does not create a high, unlike marijuana, which makes one high after the consumption of it. In cigarettes, the nicotine is addictive, but one can still be able to fully engage in conversation after smoking it. Along the lines of that opinion, many also say that cigarettes are deadly so why are they still legal, and pot can't be? The counter argument could be that such places like CVS, which I have mentioned in a previous post, are starting to cease the distributing of cigarettes, which is a promising beginning to decimating the product in other drug stores. A worry that many people have is that if all states legalized the use of marijuana then any political figure can basically walk into a meeting or court smoking a joint. How would anything be done in America with intuitive skill and cautious decision making when we are already having troubling coming to an agreement sober? Lei's creative actions helped point out how controversial this topic still is and how it can help target the politics in this debate.