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.