Let's take a moment and reflect on how intricate of a government that the United States if America has today.  It seems like an impossible task to configure the blueprints of this democracy like the founding fathers did. They had no roadmap, since the last great democracy happened in Greece.  All they knew was what they didn't want their government to be like.  They knew they didn't want a king, and they didn't want the government to have the ability to levy ridiculous taxes.  Now after they scrapped their rough draft know as the Articles of Confederation, they created a functional government which could protect its citizens and be productive.  Throughout the next 2 and a half centuries, our government has evolved into a more modern style where politicians go to school to learn how to argue their political point and the military representatives in congress are reducing in percentage.  However, America is still based off of the constitution which was implemented roughly 2.5 centuries ago.  It has made its way through numerous recessions and one Great Depression.  It will always be there, and will always be difficult to change because it is hard to argue with something that has lasted so long.

Nelson Mandela died Thursday which caused so many people worldwide to take a moment to remember his life out of respect.  By definition he was a socialist, but his policies fit the needs of South Africa.  He broke down so many barriers including his efforts to wipe racism out of South Africa.  He was a philanthropist to many organizations including his own foundation committed to HIV and AIDS research.  Though his rule in South Africa was short, his impact on South Africa will forever be felt.  In the very least, Nelson Mandela shows that different governments work for different countries.  America has a democracy based on limited government and we love it because it is our culture.  Under Mandela, South Africa has a socialist government which the citizens loved too because it was their culture and the fact that it worked so well.  This shows that for government, one size does not fit all, and is based off of the culture and people.

A deal has been reached with Iran to slow their quest for nuclear weapons.  America wants Iran to give up on their nuclear program because they say it is a threat to the world's safety, but Rouhani insists that the nuclear program is merely for enrichment, and therefore their right.   My opinion on this problem is that all nuclear programs in the world should be ended, but since that does not seem like a likely situation, other strategies are needed.  It doesn't seem right to me that America has deemed theirselves the only responsible enough country to handle possession of nuclear weapons.  We say that Iran shouldn't have them because they are dangerous people who could blow up the whole world.  Don't get me wrong, I am a total patriot and give the military my 100% support, but I'm not sure if we can just declare that we are responsible enough to handle nuclear weapons.  I don't believe any country should have that right.  After all, America is the only in country in history to ever use a nuclear bomb on another nation, yet we think we are responsible enough to possess them?  The only way to make a step forward in world peace is to eliminate nuclear weapons on a global level.  No nation should be allowed to hold that much power.

It is hard for me to understand how congress fails to remember the basic principle that was no doubt hammered into their heads as they were students in high school.  The fact that "the reason we learn about history is so that we are better prepared for the future because history repeats itself". In recent years, congress has once again tried the philosophy that releasing a federal budget is not necessary and just too much work.  I do not understand how they thought that this was a good idea when only 15 years ago congress tried this, and it led to a governmental shutdown.  When congress fails to publish a budget, it passes a continuing resolution which let's agencies do what they did last year and take the same amount.  This is a lazy process that occurs when congress gives up on compromising.  And once again, in 2013, it led to another governmental shutdown.  If congress doesn't get their act together and start passing a budget, the next time a Democrat is in office, the same incident will occur.  I don't think the government has a spending problem, because most of the things that the federal government finances is mandatory things.  I think the government has a problem with big picture spending.  Every American can decide that one day they are going to treat themselves to a new refrigerator or a new shirt, but at the end of the month, those people have to own up to their spending because they allocate themselves a personal budget.  It is time that the national government has to live to those same standards and the only way it can be held responsible is if they pass a federal budget.

If you need any proof that children rebel against their parents when they grow up, you need not look further than the marijuana business.  Back in the 70's, with love, sex, and rock and roll, marijuana was just one of the recreational drugs that were being used heavily.  The children of those hippies decided for themselves that maybe it's not such a good idea to turn out like my parents because they all have STD's and a number of brain cells lost.  As a result, the marijuana industry declined.  In recent years, the children of the children of those hippies are trying to reverse things again.  California led the way a couple of years ago by permitting Marijuana for the medicinal values it can have.  This past year, Colorado led the way by being the first state to pass the use of marijuana for recreational use.  The business purpose of this law was to place a heavy tax on marijuana that would make the state richer.  The Colorado act to legalize marijuana was a public warranted initiative.  Not only do those people really love their pot, they are adamant enough to make it happen. If history is any indication, a lot more states will soon follow Colorado's lead and legalize marijuana. If this process takes too long, however, the next generation of leaders will turn the tide again to make sure that marijuana stays illegal in other states.

LGBT rights is a touchy subject to a lot of people because some feel uncomfortable discussing it due to their religion and some feel uncomfortable talking about it because they feel misunderstood.  I do not think this is an issue that should be brushed aside because it is the next step in civil rights. Back in the 50's and 60's the African Americans attained their justice from peaceful demonstrations and now in the 2000's the LGBT community is peacefully protesting in Washington to gain their full rights as a normal citizen. With the striking down of DOMA, the LGBT crowd made significant improvements in their rights and I believe that it will only progress forward from this point.  In 50 years I'm sure we will look back and won't understand how the times have changed just as we do now with black rights

In George Washington's farewell address, he said that political parties would do nothing but cause a division among the American people, and therefore advised America to not divide into factions.  Immediately after he died, the US divided into factions.  The factions divide people and make them change their ideologies so that they better fit the party that they associate themselves with.  In contrast, political parties trade off their party platforms so they can get more voters.  The flexibility of these political parties is a compromise between the two party system and Washington's no party system.  I know this is a stretch, but this flexibility between the parties keeps America from reaching a stalemate over issues.  This sort of thing happened when the democrats reached a deal with the republicans a couple week ago ending the shutdown. Washington did not get his wish of America not splitting into factions, but our political are capable of compromises which allows for progress

What's the big deal about healthcare? This topic I struggle with. I don't see how a national healthcare program would infringe on our rights as an individual. In Alabama, we are already required to pay car insurance for the safety of our car.  Why shouldn't we pay taxes for health insurance for the safety of our bodies! The poor overwhelmingly support this bill, so obviously the money is not the issue.  Is the issue the pride? Must we depend on our own hard work for everything? Obviously we love help because we have religions based off of gods who help us, so why must we neglect help from other human beings? Wars happen because the countries refuse to help each other, so why not avoid that altogether? National healthcare is not a revolutionary idea, it had been going on in other countries for years.  Lucas Siefert was telling us the other day that national healthcare isn't even a problem because it's just how things are.  Only because we are given the opportunity for protecting our selves is it a problem.  After years of continuation, things become the norm.  Civil rights is now no longer an issue to the young generation of 2013, 50 years from now, gay marriage will be just as normal.  Healthcare will be the same way.

The first week of the government shutdown has gone by and still no progress.  Republicans are refusing to raise the debt limit and Obama is determined not to give in on this issue.  The US may be facing the decision to default, which would cripple the US economy and also impact the global economy.  I believe that both sides are right in what they want.  The liberals want to raise the debt limit and the conservatives want to decrease the debt.  Because neither side can get what they want, why not do both? Raise the debt ceiling so that the government has breathing room to comfortably make decisions on how to lower the debt.  We need not be selfish as a nation to get what we want.  If we remain selfish and eventually default because of our stubbornness, the world economy would be crushed because so many countries rely on payment from the United States for bills. We should raise the debt ceiling and re-open congress so that the lives of other countries aren't ruined, then we can take care of our own policies.  Make congress publish a budget to hold them responsible and put responsible people in congress.  If we take these small steps, then we ca avoid disaster.

It amazes me how as children we are taught how to share, compromise, and work together, yet we cannot exhibit those things when it comes to the US congress.  It is inexcusable how congress has refused to fund some of Obama's health care act.  It has already been passed, it has already been Supreme Court approved, so what's the hold up? This selfish act of some of the republican congressmen is detrimental to the whole nation.  If we live in a democracy, then officials we elect must learn to accept the democratic policy that sometimes the public will go against your opinion.  The refusal to cooperate has driven America into a government shutdown.  Everyone of those congressmen should be replaced because they have failed to prove productive.  It has been said that 10% of people are happy with the job congress has done.  My question is where are the 10% of America that actually approves? Those voting that way obviously are not educated about what congress has achieved.  Since I am under 18 I cannot vote, but I challenge you to vote for someone that YOU know will do a good job.  It is time to end the ignorance in America end the time of congress stubbornly arguing for hours only to accomplish nothing.  Please vote so that America can continue on as a nation.

Wherever you look, you can read about Syria.  A big question in America is to whether we should go to war against Syria and bomb their country.  Yes, it is sad that the government is using chemical weapons against people, but we don't really know a lot about these people in general.  In America, whether the government will tell this or not, people rioting against the government will be punished and tortured to give information.  We as Americans do not question this act because we deem it necessary because we trust our government to do the right thing.  I think it is time that America stops acting like the policeman of the world, and letting other countries rule how they want to.  Governments do not kill people, unless they feel that those people are dangers to society.  If the Syria thing results in civil war, we should leave them be because it is their responsibility to fix it.  During the American Civil War, Britain didn't bomb one side because they felt like they were bad; so neither should America.  In a "free country" we need to start letting other countries be free from our rule.

Every time a mass shooting happens, like the one at the naval yard yesterday, there is mass grief for the victims.  Soon afterwards, people advocate for stronger gun laws.  Many believe that it would be the most logical fix to a gun problem would be to take the guns out of the hands of people, thus eliminating the option for a shooting.  It is obvious that eliminating guns from citizens is impossible because the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to hold one.  Because we will never be able to eliminate guns in America, we need to think of smarter ways to eliminate these mass shootings.  The answer is not more guns either.  Because this shooting took place in a naval yard, it is easy to assume that many guns were at that facility.  The killing ended in a gun battle.  If the answer is not to eliminate guns and the answer is also not to have more guns, then what do we do? I think the quick answer is to elevate security.  Having metal detectors at every door in every institution would be quite a hassle, but it may be beneficial! Having a security guard everywhere would provide for more jobs, thus providing more safety and a better economy. Even though this is an awful suggestion, it seems like the best overall policy I've heard yet

It is difficult for me to reflect on what happened this day 12 years ago from my experience.  At the time the planes flew into the World Trade Center, I was only 5 years old.  I don't believe that my parents sheltered me too much from the incident because there was really nothing I could do about it. I learned about the history of 9/11 mostly from school where they would have a little assembly every year in remembrance.  It was not until today that I actually saw footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.  It made me think what kind of person would do this kind of thing.  The Al Qaeda group is the truest definition of evil there is.  Not only are they responsible for so many deaths of innocent people, but they also disgraced the religion of Islam.  Muslims do not have any more sympathy for these terrorists than we Americans do.  It is truly unfair that the Islamic religion has been associated with this group! The back-bone of Islam is peace and love of God.  Somewhere, deep within the depths of Koran is a passage that tells if you die in battle, then you shall receive a special spot in heaven.  This is the passage that the Muslim extremists have twisted and corrupted to mean "if you kill innocent people, God will like you more". Just like the Koran, the Bible has some passages in the Old Testament that make Christians Crinkle their noses at, just like in Christianity there are some denominations who other Christians want no part of.  My point is that we cannot ignorantly label Muslims as terrorists.  Muslims like Christians are kind, peaceful loving worshipers who believe in the same God.  We can however label terrorists as terrorists, and we can unite as a world against terror and evil so that no country will have to live in fear of being attacked by these hateful souls.

Everybody is talking these days about Syria and American intervention.  Many believe that we should help out against the evil Syrian government because they are using chemical weapons against its people, but many others think that we as a nation should not get involved because we will just go into more debt and have more American soldiers die.  Obama turned to congress to ask for their opinion after the Syrian government crossed the line by using chemical weapons.  Congress came to him and most said that their state says that we should stay out of intervening.  I believe that as a nation we must not be the leaders of the UN who are quick to jump to battle.  Because we are just returning our soldiers from the Iraq war and because we are in debt, I think we should be one of the countries who does not join the fight unless we have other countries who will fight with us.  Slowly in recent days, foreign governments have backed away and said that they do not want to get involved.     Because of this, I think America shouldn't play "big brother" to the world, but rather be independent.  In George Washington's farewell address, he advised America to not get involved in European wars.  I think we should stay out of intervention because it would put American lives at risk.

It is hard for an uneducated person who does not pay attention to government, during non-election years, to truly give a responsible vote when time comes.  These people also get angry when they unexpectedly have to obey new laws or pay higher taxes.  The problem is that these type of people are all over America.  These people bash the government because it is "cool" without understanding or even making an effort to know what's going on in the country.  The disassociation with the government is the reason that these people are unhappy with the government.  I think that if people would stay more educated about congressional actions, then much more support would come.  In George Washington's farewell address, he warned the nation to avoid political factions.  Today in congress we see why he warned us about this.  We are not getting anything done because congressmen are refusing to vote for a policy that the opposite side came up with.  The problem is not our system of government alone, nor is it the politicians, but rather that we as Americans must unite like the original 13 colonies for the better good of America.  We must put aside our party affiliations and do the right thing.  The uninformed American must also become informed so they can become a better citizen.

Now that I have has time to think about what I have read, I have a pretty good idea on my feelings towards this book.  I could tells that this book was written by a young writer, because it is written exactly how I would have written it.  It was a fun read, but didn't come across at all like a great piece of writing.  There were many ideas that started out in the book, but we're never really revisited including references to "the blue and red pill".  I could definitely tell that this book was written by someone who was born and raised as a Conservative by the way that she was so definite in her beliefs. Not once did she even think about not being Pro Life. I had a problem with the way that she drew the attention to herself and away from the campaign because the book had very little content on politics.  One would think with the name, Dirty sexy Politics, that the book would be more focused on the campaign than how others didn't give her enough attention on the campaign trails.  This book had virtually no content about beliefs until the very last chapter where she explained her beliefs on what the Republican Party should focus on to win future elections.  I would recommend this book to someone who likes a good story about an American girl on the road, but for someone trying to learn more about the belief system of the Republican Party, this is not the right book.  I am a Democrat and was interested in reading this book because I thought I could learn more about Republican beliefs. Rather than making me understand American politics more, this book made me live the life of a dramatic 24 year old who wants to tag along with her father as he runs for president.

I have just finished reading the second half  of Dirty Sexy Politics and feel a lot more educated as to what goes on behind the scenes in a presidential campaign.  Although Meghan did improve with her ability to handle TV interviews and political rallies, she still never seemed to be the person whom the campaign manager wanted her to be.  She eventually became enough of a problem that she was asked to leave the tour.  She, however, was given the chance to start her own tour to try to appeal to the younger crowds, and decided to make the most of it.  She never bonded with any of the Palin kids as she had hoped.  She actually came of as bitter towards Bristol who shocked America by being pregnant at 17.  I felt like Meghan was really out of line and hypocritical to complain that Bristol was bringing unwanted attention to the campaign.  For the past year, Meghan had been the flaw of the campaign, and now that there was a newcomer who took that role, Meghan immediately judged her for it.  After the loss in the election, Meghan pointed out some flaws in the Republican strategy as regards for winning the presidency.  She emphasized how Republicans should get back to what made them great with people like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.  She says that the Republican Party needs to accept gay marriage as a "civil rights matter" and that instead of trying to live off the great Ronald Reagan, they should take his approach of bringing new ideas to America.  She explained how much of the Republican supporters are older middle-class white men and Evangelical Christians.  Meghan explained that because the Republican Party only has these groups of supporters, they need to expand their views to help create a party that is open to everybody.  Meghan never did receive the credit that she was deserved, but the campaign wasn't about her anyways.  She should not have been the focus point of the campaign, and she wasn't.

I meant to add to my last post that, as a Democrat, I have really come to respect John McCain for his loving personality. Meghan did a good job of humanizing a man that to the naked eye can seem come off as a typical "big business" man who has separated himself from the average American.

After reading the first half of this book, I am more interested in politics and am really enjoying reading this book about the misfit "daughter-of" who just can't seem to fit in with the other daughter's of presidents.  This book portrays the life of Meghan McCain on the campaign trail in 2008. This book is not only entertaining, but it also informative of just how stressful being on a campaign trail can be with regards to inadequate funding, harassing media, and the occasional failure during the primaries and presidential election.  I think Meghan in Dirty Sexy Politics is trying to convince people that, even though Republicans can sometimes come of as "rich men who have no concern for the poor" or "ruthless politicians who will do anything to get ahead", that John McCain was just a regular dad who loved his daughters and was interested in what the people had to say.  Meghan talks about "dirty politics" and how sometimes each party does it. She told of a time that she went around pulling up signs for Mitt Romney and putting them in the trunk of her car (she eventually stopped when a man got out of his car and threatened to call the police).  She also tells how frustrating it was for their family when the Bush Administration sent out fliers before the South Carolina primary spreading falsehoods.  The fliers said ridiculous things like calling Mrs. McCain a drug addict and saying that one of the adopted McCain daughters was a "negro child".  The overall message I get from this book is that many people spend their life waiting to tear famous people apart and that as someone famous, you can't let that get to you. You have to live your life like you would, and not be selfish by drawing unnecessary attention to your self. Meghan's role on the campaign is to wright in her blog and be a charming young lady. She is much more free spirited than the other daughters-of and sometimes it gets her in trouble.  I think that she is a young woman who is still learning how to act in an interview, but she is also receiving enormous amounts of criticism. She is surprisingly very intelligent when it comes to politics and I have to wonder, as I read on, will she ever get the credit she deserves.

   

       I chose to read the book Dirty Sexy Politics because the librarian told me that it was widely popular, an easy fun read, and interesting.  The book was written in 2010 by Senator John McCain's daughter, Meaghan.  When reading comments from others who have read it on Amazon, some praised her for being a daughter of a presidential nominee who actually knew what she was talking about, but others slammed her saying that she was just another brat who loves the spotlight that she gained through her fathers power.  Meghan was 26 when she wrote this book about her life on the campaign trails.  She was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1984 and went to college at Columbia University.  Now she is a columnist and is an author for The Daily Beast and is also a contributor for MSNBC. She claims to be Republican, but critics say that many of her views are that of the Democratic Party. I was happy to read, when researching this book that she was republican because I was raised a Democrat and wanted to get a sense of the other party's views.   I'm assuming that this book will be heavily slanted and biased towards a Republican viewpoint which is good because I can learn more about the other party's platform and beliefs.