#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.

#5 Understanding: Affirmative Action

In honor of African-American History Month I wanted to write about a topic that is controversial, while also touching base on the importance of what this month brings. The Affirmative Action is defined as the policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination especially in relation to employment or education. The pro side of the Affirmative Action is that it grants fair acceptance into institutions for those of different ethnicities, which could help raise the diversity in companies or colleges. Some people believe that many who are of different races are discriminated against and don't have the same opportunities that whites receive, regarding jobs or education. Others on the con side of the Affirmative Action argue about how the intention of the act actually creates more racism than it wards off; it allows those of different ethnicities to be favored and specialized over others. Many also argue that students or adults are being accepted into colleges or companies not based on merit, but primarily by the color of their skin. I have posted a very interesting video about students at Berkeley College in California who held a bake sale to get a point across about the Affirmative Action. One group of students baked a numerous range of baked goods and sold them at different prices. White students who wanted to purchase a pastry had to pay two dollars, Latino students who wanted to purchase a baked good only had to pay one dollar. As you can see these set of students were on the con side of the Affirmative Action with the reasoning that while it has the intention of creating an equal balance, it actually creates the opposite. Another group of students that held a bake sale sold their baked goods for free, demonstrating their beliefs on the pro side of the Affirmative Action, and how it generates equality. Through this video, one can receive a visual of unique illustrations of how two sides perceive this political topic.

Understanding this debated topic sociologically, we can see how it affects people. Many people are on the pro side of this act because they feel as though some races have been extremely discriminated against in U.S. history by whites. Therefore, they believe that we now have the responsibility to "make up" to those who were discriminated against and give them a more equal shot at freedom. When talking about discrimination in the past not only are we talking about slavery, but we can also refer to the Jim Crow laws that pretty much took any level of freedom away from the African Americans after the Civil War. Whites did not let them drink out of the same water fountain, they forced them to sit on the back of the bus, and they couldn't even shake a white woman's hand. Many feel as though the horrific events that took place in America's past must be evened out through this act. The guilt may be prevalent because some of those who were discriminated against are now in the lower income classes of society. Lots of people feel as though whites are one of the main causes of poverty of African Americans. However, now let's take a look at the con side of this policy. Many on this side of the argument believe that it should not be enacted because it only creates more discrimination. The key word is favoring. Favoring a race that does not include whites for beneficial reasons can be considered the exact same thing as discrimination. You are now just favoring Latinos over caucasians, by still creating an unequal playing field. Another reasoning on this side of the policy is that people will now be accepted into jobs and colleges based on their skin color and not by merit. Those who work hard, may not be accepted because someone of a different skin color, but lower GPA, got in. Many also feel as though this policy can lead to laziness. Those who qualify for exceptions may then aim for lower grades and not put as much effort into school or work because they know they have an express train to success. Those who are honored in Black History Month are partly regarded because of their break in society due to their skin color, but also because they had the power to prove that they were more than that.

#4 Understanding: CVS vs. Cigarettes

For this weeks post I've decided to take a break from the popular political debates and talk about an issue that may be hidden from public eye. I came across this article that talked about how CVS will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco related items by October, 2014. This out of the blue declaration have got many concerned, mostly because now consumers will have one less drugstore to buy cigarettes from! What caused this sudden action?  CVS has decided to take a step towards providing better health care. As many know, CVS has MinuteClinics that supply vaccinations to people and helps with minor illnesses. By having cigarettes in the store it sends off a hypocritical vibe to the public. Get the flu vaccination and other preventive medicines in our MinuteClinic, but don't forget to pick up our tobacco products on the way out! Such signals keep the direction of this drug store company at stagnant. The ideal goal of CVS is for other related companies to emulate their actions and take the same initiative to stop selling cigarettes. The executive vice president and chief medical officer of CVS understands, "that the average person will just find somewhere else to buy cigarettes," but also understands their prescience of climbing in a direction of promoting health care by limiting the products of cigarettes, which can lower the number of smokers. By limiting the access to lethal products, it can ultimately lead to a decrease of premature deaths. Many may be thinking that if CVS stops selling cigarettes then their sales will decrease, right? Well CVS realizes this and hopes that their future decrease in revenue will be balanced through a newly created "smoking cessation program". This program, created by the CVS company, has a goal to get Americans to stop smoking, which they will market towards insurance plans whom would pay for this health program.

Now, lets put on our sociological lenses and see if we can find the core problems that arise from this. One of the most obvious controversial red flag is waving; rights! Where are the rights for the citizens of America? Many look at this and see their privileges being taken away; one less available option to purchase tobacco products. The many common questions are, "Why should companies or the government decide if I should smoke or not?" "Why can't I make that decision on my own?" and "I should be able to make the choice of if I want to damage my own health." Another way to look at it from a rights perspective would be from the views of those against the selling of cigarettes. Many times people are smoking in front of other people because it's a "free country", which can cause secondhand smoke and be a factor in the limitation of citizen's rights for those against the production of tobacco products. A person's health can be affected when they haven't consented to it. As you can see there are two different perceptions of where rights stand between citizens. Through this decision you can also see CVS developing as a company. CVS took a huge risk in deciding to not sell tobacco products in order to promote a health awareness title for their company. However,  if we take a closer look we can also infer that if CVS knew that ceasing to sell tobacco products would result in a major economic loss for the company, they probably wouldn't have taken the jump. Which makes you question if it was an economic step or a health awareness step. Their sale revenue from their tobacco products must have been low, or at least low enough to know that their company wouldn't sink big time. At the end of the day a company wants to make money, and they won't take a step to helping others if they didn't benefit from it too.

#3 Understanding: "ObamaCare"

With my second topic comes a lot of confusion. Health care is not a simple topic that can be understood easily. Even if you ask most adults I'm sure many of them are not entirely comprehensive of the many intricate details that comes with this topic. I am in no way close to understanding this complexity and know it will be a long time until I finally do, but with a little help I can begin to grasp the broad understandings of what it entails. This video by Kahn Academy helps give a better representation of "ObamaCare," also known as, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This video covers the four sub topics of Health Care which helps break down what the policy is and how you can benefit, or not, by it. The first of the four sub topics, is individual mandate, which talks about how you either have to get the health insurance or pay a tax. Those who aren't paying insurance at the moment and are receiving care at the emergency room are adding to the bill of those who are already paying insurance because they have to be treated. When the mandatory tax becomes issued out, those who don't have health care and will choose not to receive it, will be paying the tax which, essentially, is supposed to compromise for the health care they are already receiving. The second sub topic includes pre- existing conditions. In this category insurers will charge someone who is healthy and someone who is not, located in the same place, the same price. Thirdly, the insurance exchanges category will potentially make clear the type of insurance that one is advertising and the policies within it for the purchasing customer. Lastly, the final sub topic includes subsidies. This will increase medical costs for those with larger incomes to make those with lower incomes able to afford this health care plan. This video is a broad overview of the very complex health care act that helps one who is blurred on this topic, including me, understand the basic background of it.

< PPACA or "Obamacare": Basic overview of what is sometimes referred to as "Obamacare"

Now, looking through this topic with a sociological lens we can see where problems can occur. For starters one of the many debated parts of the policy lays in the first sub topic, which is if people should be forced to receive health care. Should people be required to pay and be given health care? Does this go against individual rights? If America is about equality and giving equal rights, then I agree that everyone should be given equal health care. But it's not easy to distribute something as costly as that, the manor in which such a thing is prosecuted is not simple. In the pre-existing conditions sub topic it can be looked at as something similar to a flat tax. Someone who is sick and someone who is healthy can, essentially, pay the same health insurance without the cost increasing for someone who is ill. With equal pay, both can benefit. A person with an illness will not have to pay increased medical revenues and can pay the same as someone who is healthy. This goes along the lines of natural rights and the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. Why should someone receiving health care be given a higher price because they had or have the misfortune of experiencing an illness, and how will this increased cost for health care benefit them? Another controversy that is debated is held in the final sub topic. Should those who can well afford medical care have to pay extra for those who can't? Many would state that they work hard for their money and shouldn't have to be taxed more just because they make more. To many it does not necessarily seem fair, and it almost leads into what we have discussed in class regarding the idea of sharing the cost. In this case we would be socializing health care. Do we help pay for the well being of others? As a mostly capitalistic country a shift in this nature would lead to mixed opinions and views. We also have the concept that well it's my money, I worked hard for it, I want to spend it on my me and my family and I don't want my money paying for someone else when it could have been spent on other things that would have benefitted my family and I. Should the well being of a community override the individual? Should the individual pay in regard to the idea that the fortunate should help the unfortunate? Or should the rights of an individual decide where their money is going when paying for a policy? The difficult development of this act can, in a way, be noticed as a shift in form of government, which leave many unhappy of where the structures of the American society is going. As one can clearly see, this policy has the goal of goodness for all, but the implementing of it can be difficult, intricate, and quite controversial.

#2 Understanding: The Gun Control Debate

On my first topic of politics I wanted to incorporate a debate that has been on the hot seat for many years now, one of the most heated political controversies that just seems to not want to be resolved. The Gun Debate. This heated conflict has spread throughout the country, with polar opinions on both political parties. The article that I have chosen to read on gun control stresses the high disagreement between parties. The republican view on this topic is that there should be lesser laws on gun control and no background checks for private gun sales. On the other hand, democrats are in support of stronger gun laws that make purchasing guns more difficult. In the article, both parties are taking steps to advocate their different points of view, and to make sure their voices are heard. An example of such took place in Washington State where pro gun control supporters gathered 225,000 signatures that could win a vote which would mandate background checks for private gun sales. Conversely, those in support of the second amendment created groups and campaigns that would fight government involvement in gun sales. However, after the tragic shooting that took place in Newtown Connecticut, gun control supporters are showing their top game in order to pass a bill that could increase gun restrictions. Years before the event, gun control supporters were fighting for a far off goal, but since the shooting they have recharged their opinions and regained their passion for fighting. After the shooting, evident changes were made in the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and New York that allowed thorough background checks when applying for a gun. In other states, changes in gun legislation were made restricting gun possession of the mentally ill. However, these changes were moderate at best, leaving the nation split. It seems like when one party takes one step, the other makes a point to go two steps further.

Why is it that this is a continual debate that never ceases to become resolved? Why are these two parties so stubborn in their opinions that they can't compromise? Through a sociological perspective the answer lies in our past. If we look prior to the American Revolution we can see how the oppression presented through the government of a British monarchy lead to the amendment of the right to bear arms. Unfair taxation and monopolies consumed the colonists. Because of this difference in power between the colonists and Great Britain, the ultimate quest was to make sure that most citizens held inalienable rights that would allow them to act freely. After the American Revolution the people wanted to create a fair and balanced government, thus, drafting the Constitution and later adding the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights they put in one of the most controversial amendments. The colonists added the second amendment, the right to bear arms, because of their lack of protection previous to the revolution. The British government took away the colonists rights to bear arms, because they didn't want an uprising to occur. Therefore, in our Bill of Rights, the right to own a gun was included because not only were our rights to own a gun previously striped, but at the time there was no police department to protect the colonists against crime. There was no other form of protection, besides allowing citizens to own guns. In the 238 years since the revolution we have gained a stronger army, a police force, and many other forms of protection. Thus, the question of why people still need to hold the possession of a gun is debated. Our own history is what led to the reoccurring debate on gun control, which makes it difficult to balance the individual rights to bear arms versus protecting the public.

#1 Intro to Understanding Politics

Many are scared when they hear the word, "politics". It may be because of the strong opinions held in each major political issue that one is scared to get involved. However, politics surround our daily lives and in order to stop fearing this seemingly complex topic, one must face it. That is why I chose politics as my blog subject, because I want to better understand this topic and all that it entails. By taking on this abstract topic, I can begin to learn more about it and all of its incredibly broad features. Sociology is studying someone and trying to uncover the laws of life altogether. While, political science deals with the government organization of society. Sociology and politics are interrelated in a sense that sociology studies how the state is providing for the people and their values, while understanding how people live as a whole.