#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.