Syria

Link: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/10/201750/opposition-fears-russia-deal-means.html#.UjaM08asiSo

Synopsis: So most people know the gist of what is going on in Syria, so I won't do a huge synopsis, but anyway the link above is one of many I visited on this subject. From what they all told me it sounds like Syria, a country in much turmoil politically, used chemical weapons on its civilians. The controversy comes from the debate on whether the US should interfere with this or to just let it go. From what I have gathered, it sounds like we are going to try to take away the chemical weapons rather than make a direct military strike.

If I have gotten any facts incorrect or have missed anything major, PLEASE correct me in the comments. After all, the internet is not always the best place to look for truth.

Man guys, I am sorry this has been such a blah bipolar post, but I am just stuck. I hope that everyone will comment any additional info and perspectives you may have so that I can hopefully develop an informed opinion. Feel free to persuade me below!

Analysis: I guess we just finished up our unit of study on Federalism. I would totally have done something related to that if I could find anything good, but Syria is the only thing that seems to show up when I type 'current events politics' into Google. I will be honest though, I really did not want to do Syria, for many reasons. One of them is the fact that up until now, I knew next to nothing about this topic. I used to watch the news a couple of times per week before school started, but have since been way busy, and haven't had the chance to catch up again until now. The second reason I really did not want to do a report on this topic is because as of now, I really don't know the answer. What I mean by that is, I can totally see both sides, and they both make sense. On the one hand, I am thinking "Well who are we to be the police of the world? It is not like the attack was against us. This is their civil war. Why should we butt in? This is their deal and we shouldn't try and interfere, but just let it run its course." On the other hand, I am also thinking "But people are dying! If we can save them, why wouldn't we? I mean, look what happened when everyone let Hitler alone!"  Both points are battling in my head, and I truly can not come up with a side I am on. Now that it seems we are going to control the chemical weapons, rather than intervene, I don't even know how I feel about that. I think it may be smart not to butt in, but one of the comments made in the link made sense too: "it's not acceptable for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons and continue killing us by other means" Man guys, I am sorry this has been such a blah bipolar post, but I am just stuck. I hope that everyone will comment any additional info and perspectives you may have so that I can hopefully let it all stew and eventually develop an informed opinion. Feel free to persuade me below!

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/10/201750/opposition-fears-russia-deal-means.html#.UjaM08asiSo#storylink=cpy

Newly proposed gun bill catching heat

Date: 8/27/13

Current unit of study: The Constitution

Link: http://www.walb.com/story/16548846/newly-proposed-gun-bill-catching-heat

Synopsis: basically this article is about a new bill in GA that would require those looking to get a gun

carrying permit to take a four hour safety course. It gives the concerns of Stephen Drew pertaining 

to the bill.  He raised concerns mostly about the cost of the permit. The article went on to say that 

If you are in active military duty, a police officer or state certified weapons trainer, you are exempt. 

Analysis: This relates to our current study of the constitution because gun rights is a subject which 

has to do with the second amendment in the bill of rights. Some people think that more regulation

on guns would lead to a safer country, while others argue that it is against the 2nd amendment. 

Call me a crazy gun activist,  but personally I would not support this bill. I am not against learning 

gun safety, but I think that taking this class would be similar to taking a year of high school 

Spanish in that all that you would really remember is the stuff that you pretty much already knew. 

Hola. Don't point the gun at people. Uno dos tres. Always leave the safety on when not in use.

No habla espanol. This is how you check if it is loaded. The point I am trying to make is that nobody

will truly remember half the stuff they learn in that 4 hour course. I do think that you should have to know 

the basics such as putting the safety on, loading and unloading, etc., but a four hour safety course

feels really excessive. Also, just a last thought, I am also thinking that requiring this safety course

will most likely not stop the psychos of the world from getting their hands on guns, it may just take them 
four hours longer.