I D.A.R.E You to Read This.

                       Remember when we all wore graphic backpacks to school, had our own cubby, colored in every subject, and had an hour to play outside because we couldn’t sit still for more than two hours at a time? I do. For many of us when we hear the words “elementary school” we think about square pizza and swing jumping contest; however I think about two things, peeing my pants in the first grade because I just couldn’t hold it and D.A.R.E (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). A Police Officer would come in every Thursday to discuss the importance of not drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana, but as my classmates began to grow out of their elastic jeans they also turned to those very substances. So why are kids consuming marijuana and alcohol when the government is dumping millions of dollars into programs like D.A.R.E?

            Programs such as D.A.R.E are not effective, because the information being forced into the minds of children do not match up with their reality. Children are being told that alcohol kills people, which is true, but then they go home and watch their parents drink and their older siblings smoke—and they’re living and well. This depletes the validity of the information that the Officer is giving, so why not tell the truth?

            Police Officers are forced to stay on track of a specific teaching regiment created by D.A.R.E officials whom the government pays. They force Police Officers to show kids clips of movies that send the same message as Reefer Madness. The truth is that alcohol and marijuana have health benefits, but they shouldn’t be used by children until they are of age and are able to use them responsibly.

            I do not believe programs like D.A.R.E should be cancelled, but I believe they are sending the wrong message. I believe that the government is using these programs in order to fulfill their own political agenda instead of doing what is actually best for our youth. Spending millions of dollars to spread invalid information is just unethical. We owe it to our youth to give valid information.

Apples to Droids

            Robert Nguyen is a fellow colleague and always has reason to his speech. Nguyen is one of the few people in my GOVT 2305 class that covers interesting, relevant, and important topics. In Nguyen's latest blog, he discusses droids operated by trained professionals via remote. Nguyen continues to discuss how using droids is a safer and more efficient alternative than other combat methods; I agree.
            Locations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran have many terrain features which are not easily to captivate in land combat. Securing key terrain features on mountain tops in order to gain an advantage over an enemy is not always as easy as Hollywood has made it out to be. Having 32(a platoon) lives at stakes while carrying out an operations order is a lot more time consuming and dangerous rather than flying a drone or using other types of droids; However are they more accurate than a soldier with an M-4 (issued guns soldiers use overseas/smaller version of M-16)?
            Many soldiers deal with problems not only overseas, but when they come back. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder has affected more soldiers when they come back home from deployments then actual physical injuries. Many soldiers will go overseas and be under unstable leadership who believe in killing for numbers. Squads will kill innocent civilians and carry drop weapons ( a weapon carried incase of an accidental killing, so that is seems that the civilian was attempting to shoot). The soldiers at the time will feel that the decision made was okay, but when they leave that hostile environment they are able to see their wrongs.
            Due to the statistics shown by my colleague, I believe that droids should play a much larger role in the U.S. military than it does as of late.

Who's in Charge?

“Who is your Daddy and what does he do?”, these famous words were spoken by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the hit film Kindergarten Cop. In the United States we tend to look at our presidents as our countries Daddy, but what does he do? The President has, but is not limited to the following powers: Commander in chief of the armed forces, Power to commission officers in the military and to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, Call Congress into special session, Receive ambassadors from other nations, Faithfully execute the laws, Appoint officials, Make treaties and appoint ambassadors, with consent of the Senate, Sign or veto legislation. So why are so many Americans upset with the President when the National Government isn’t performing up to the public’s standards? This answer is simple; we don’t know what the president is and is not capable of due to lack of interest.

But what does the American public expect from the government? Health Care benefits, safety, individual rights, social security, equality, freedom, and fair taxing—unfortunately this sounds a lot like the communist manifesto, and due to American ignorance we choose to fear and criticize the word communism.  But what if, in order to meet one of our standards, the government decided they needed to violate one of our rights?

In 2001 George W. Bush decided to increase national security in order to maintain the countries safety, but in the process he violated our 4^th amendment.  His new increase in national security allowed the national government to violate our privacy by having the ability to view our Internet files and listen to our phone conversations. So how did he receive all of this power? We gave it to him.

The national government derives its powers from the people, so whether things are going bad in America or good, we are to blame.