Fiction Vs. Reality

The topic I've chosen to discuss is the idea that the President of the United States believes that violent movies or other forms of entertainment negatively impact people. For starters, I believe this idea is absolutely ridiculous. In an article posted by this site, Obama encourages film makers and others in entertainment to take responsibility for their products and announces the detrimental value of online violence to the lives of children. I find this to be a joke.

The president goes to stress that those in Hollywood don't "glorify violence", while implying his belief that tragedies such as the shooting at Sandy Hook were caused by on-screen violence. Plenty of my friends, as well as myself, have been exposed to numerous violent movies and video games..and yet, we all lead fairly normal, healthy lives. Why? Because the problem isn't with the content, it's with the PEOPLE who get access to it. The difference between reality and virtual reality is very clear to most of the general population. The large majority of us aren't going to watch Die Hard and suddenly have the urge to hunt cyber terrorists. Or finish playing Call of Duty and say "Hey, that looks like fun. Let's try it out on the street." If such were the case, tragedies such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and others would happen on a more frequent basis as the entertainment our society enjoys becomes more violent.

You could argue that the majority of violent crimes happen for several reasons unrelated to video games. Most robbers are thinking of video games when they rob people. They're doing it for money. There are crimes of passion, which isn't exactly something movie producers are advertising people to do. Speaking of advertisement, a lot of violent games or movies come with a warning tell viewers not to reenact what they see. If Obama doesn't see that as taking responsibility for your product, I'm not surely exactly what he is looking for.

Violent entertainment isn't responsible for atrocities committed by those in the general public. It's just a convenient scapegoat.

A fork in the Educational Road?

I have decided to use Maria's post about the government profiting off student loans as the post to analyze. She brings up numerous points that I am in agreement with, such as the rising interest rates on student loans, the increasingly heavy debts students face, and the idea that the federal government  shouldn't profit off students. However, while I favor Maria's opinion, I can see the other side of it too.

With the nation trillions of dollars in debt, one can expect the government to look for revenue in any areas that they can find. Charging interest on student loans is a quick way to bring in much needed money, whether it be in the best interest of our society or not. Also, I do believe that schools are inviting towards students. With all the ads and commercials on television and in newspapers these days, colleges are practically begging students to attend their campus. Plus, almost all colleges offer grants or scholarships of some kind, with some even offering full funding for a potential student. While scholarships are based on grades athletic merits, or any other form of achievement, many students still have the opportunity earn this "free money" through hard work. Also, many students choose to attend colleges knowing that they will be forced to apply for loan(s). A simply solution to avoiding loans is to simply narrow your field of colleges to those that fit your budget.

I feel that with the economy the way it is that the government is basically tempted to raise interest on student loans, but they aren't entirely at fault for student debts. If one was to responsibly manage their financial accounts and overstep their financial bounds by attending a modest school, debts really won't be as big of a deal.

Slow Change

I can honestly say that before this class started I never really questioned how the national government was run. To me, our system seemed exactly as it appeared; organized, strong, honest, and unified. Accepting that the United States' national government may have flaws seemed like a foreign concept. Yet, this semester has been an eye opener for a young citizen such as myself. Some information over the duration of the course has been repeat, but the discussions have given me reason to really take another look at what goes on in Washington.

Until this semester, I knew nothing of the expansion of executive powers that enabled spying on citizens without a warrant. Such an idea seemed like something out of a movie, yet it actually apparently does happen, with approval from those who are supposed to be representing the public. The repeated clashes between the two parties over such programs as Obama-care never really seemed important until the repercussions of a victory for either side were explained through discussion and lectures. It really empowered the idea that for all the talk of us being a democracy, the fate of the nation is really not with the people. The amount of leverage interest groups apparently have on representatives also does not bode well for our long term future, as more politicians make deals to satisfy their own personal ambitions.  I also never truly understood just how involved America was in global events and situations, like those in Syria and Israel. If those in Congress would focus more on domestic matters instead of meddling in areas that do not concern the well being of America, the country as a whole would be much better off. In spite of all its' flaws, however, Congress still has plenty of opportunity and time to become the kind of system the general public deserves.

Radiating Changes

If there was one constant element of the national government we as citizens could point out rather easily, it would be the seemingly endless gamesmanship between the two national parties; the Republicans and the Democrats. When one party momentarily gains an edge over the other, the latter party retaliates in a fashion that sees a shift of power in their favor. A recent post by Jon Walker on the liberal political blog Firedoglake reiterates exactly that point.

In Walker's post, he describes Democratic reaction to the Republicans attempts to an appointment of any Obama supporter to the Circuit Court of Appeals by way of filibuster in the Senate. The Republican's goal in doing so was to maintain the conservative edge they had among the judges of that particular court. However, the Democrats broke up the filibuster using a political maneuver that the author refers to as the "nuclear option", which alters the voting process in terms of the Senate. Instead of requiring the usual 60 majority votes, the Democrats only needed the basic majority, which is this particular case was 52 votes. 

Jon Walker believes that this "nuking" of a filibuster signals a change forthcoming in how things are run when it comes to decision making votes and that the threat of obstruction has been greatly reduced. I however believe that this is just a temporary solution to a insolvable problem. As Walker himself alludes to, now that everyone has seen how the traditional filibuster can  be broken down, the opposing party of the next issue will now begin looking for new ways to halt the ideas and desires of their opponents. In contrast to Walker, I believe that things will soon return to status quo.