2012, President.

Barack Obama vs Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama is from Democratic party and Mitt Romney is a Republican. According to the article “Obama Lays Out Top Three Goals For Second Term”, Obama’s goals are “Create one million manufacturing jobs over the next four years”, “Cut oil imports in half by 2020” (According to this article, Obama’s new energy policy would enhance oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic by easing up the leasing and review process.) and he also promised that “Halve the growth of college tuition costs over the next decade.” Also, about economy, according to the article “US Election 2012 guide: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's policy positions,” Obama rejected the recommendations of his bipartisan debt commission, unwilling to make proposed cuts to welfare programs. (But according to the article :President Obama's re-election economic policy", there are some people who criticize about obama's economic policy.) And about health care, according to article “US Election 2012 guide: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's policy positions,” Obamacare is the biggest legislative achievement of Obama’s presidency, but its value as part of a campaign platform is questionable. On the other hand, Romney advocates instead for lower taxes, closing tax loopholes, and much greater cuts to the largest government programs. And also according to the article “US Election 2012 guide: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's policy positions,” Romney stands on the other side for Obamacare.

 

 

 

Anyway, Romney was defeated in the election.

According to article “Why Romney Lost: Conservative Commentary Roundup”, Kevin Williamson says Romney’s downfall was his failure to sway Ohio voters, but Williamson does not so much blame Romney as attribute Obama’s victory to the president being a “skillful demagogue,” who capitalized on Ohioans’ support of the auto bailout, their opposition to low capital gains taxes for the wealthy and their reluctance to see a repeal of Obamacare. And according to the article “Why Mitt Romney Deserved To Lose The Election,” Romney said that “Cutting taxes for the rich is not my plan”.  In so doing the voters know that any Republican that buys into static analysis can, during budget negotiations, lose sight of the basic purpose of supply-side tax cuts. And finally, according to the article “Why Did Romney Lose? Conservatives Blame Single Women”, Romney did not get voters who are single and women.

 

Now Obama can move forward, again.

 

According to article “21 Reasons for Obama's Victory and Romney's Defeat”, The Obama administration’s move to Chrysler and General Motors with multibillion-dollar government loans and guarantees set several things in motion. For starters, it made carrying Michigan, Romney’s home state, problematic for Republicans. In the end, it also provided a layer of asbestos to Obama’s firewall in Ohio, which held up against Romney and Ryan’s desperate charge in the Buckeye State over the final weeks of the campaign. And also according to article “21 Reasons for Obama's Victory and Romney's Defeat”, one of the reasons is that Obama killed the Osama Bin Laden.

His 4 voters were Young Voter, college-educated white women, hispanic, African-Americans.

 





I think the reason of Election is good for all of us. First of all, I think US needs a constant implementation and Obama can continue and supplement his policy. And secondly, for the world, they do not need to re-adapt for US. So they, the whole world, are able to make a win-win world peace through cooperation.

 

 

Aww.. I don't want to finish THIS CLASS .. T_T

I tried to understand the article that I wanted to read like that. It's seems like something for test :)



1.  What new information did you learn from this class?  Think about the content.  What facts are you now aware of? 

I learned a lot of new information. Now I know the reason to continue the war between Israel and Palestine. Now I know what President Bush was doing when he got reports about 9/11 terror. Now I focus on the conflicts of Middle East. I just knew about few events in there before I took this class, but I want to know more about their conflicts. I completely understand why they do not stop fighting and I strongly want them to stop. To do so, first I should know about them more deeply.

 

2.  What new skills did you learn from this class?

 I think I also learned a lot of new skills form this class. I did not know how to research the article and I did not know how to analyze it. But I think now I can discover the hidden meaning which is floating between events.

 

3.  What did you learn about yourself from this class?  Think of politics and identity.  Think about your performance as a student.

It was the whole new world. Before I took this class, I WAS student with biased knowledge. I just took some ‘facts’ about politics from news. I do not care who want to be the president even in my country. But I could not understand without basic knowledge, I needed to understand basic things. Because of that, I usually felt hopelessness easily.

 

 

4.  What would you change about this class?  What didn't work for you? 

 Actually, I have no idea about this. I loved all things about this class. Because it is web class, I could repeat all contents and I could take plenty of time for them (but sometimes, I spent too much time to understand very little things…). If there is someone who willing to take this class, I’ll recommend. But if someone who is lazy just like me, I won't recommed any kind of web class. I think I was lazy to do my best…

 

5.  What knowledge or skill did you obtain from this class, that you will carry with you into future courses? 

          Of course, now I can read any kind of long and difficult posts quickly. I’m so glad. So I decided to read a lot of books this winter break so that I can improve reading skill. And secondly, whenever I see the news about politics or conflict between couple of countries, I can find the relationship and I want to know the fact which is placed on behind. I never felt like that before. I think this kind of curiosity can lead me to lager area that I can learn something more.

 

6.  What was your favorite topic to write about and why?

Definitely, it was Wikileaks. Actually, I cannot explain why it caught my mind. I think I just felt strong interest about ‘secret’. And when I looked about that topic, I found some reports that Wikileaks has secret about former president Noh of my country. I admire him humanly so I kept searching after I finished that assignment.

 

 

 

And...

I wrote my feeling about finishing this class on facebook. It is very hard to finish.

Even though I didn't keep the date for submitting  and I still couldn't understand many things, it was my best class ever. I learned a lot of things that I didn't expect to learn.

 

keep eye on others!

 I do think they should use predator drones to take out targets in foreign countries. And I think Pro's do overweigh the cons. Even though using predator drones is effective to attack the foreign countries. I  think this set a dangerous tone for other countries that will pursue this technology  AND I also think it is not worth it. It kind of waste. 

 But some people disagree with my opinion. According to the article of Lexiton Institue "The pros and cons of Drones war". The human rights activists are worried about using drones in these operations. And according to article of Guardian "Drones by country: who has all the UAVs?", even though other countries have drones but I cannot find any opinion that UAV purses this technology for other countries.

First of all, every country should keep in safe itself. For the US, the UAV is one of the way for protect themselves. And I cannot blame it, rather I think it is effective way for protecting. But US SHOULD act with prudence. If they instigate the war, they should stop. And for the other countries, they do not need to make another type of drones, but it is their choice. If they want to protect themselves in that way, they can make it. But I think it is kind of waste. Because if they, the others, makes drones for protecting and attacking the other countries, it will cause the war. It does not make sense. They made it for protecting themselves, but the result is war. So I think it does not have value.

Iran and the others.

I think, there is no one who has the right the right to pursue nuclear power. I completely agree with the statement from the article “The killing of Iran's nuclear scientists: 'Terrorism we support'?” : Killing civilians is never acceptable. This is terrorism, pure and simple, says Andrew Sullivan. Of course, anyone can use the nuclear power to generate electricity. But again, no one can use the nuclear power for destruction and war. Even though, they seem to have no other method to self-defense, like Iran, they should not use it for killing someone. I think, Iran, should find other way to win and leaders of Iran should not only protect their property, but also protect their people.  

They should find and fix the other "right" to protect themselves.

 

 

 

According to the article “Economics and Middle Eastern conflicts”, countries of Arab and the Middle East have a complex relationship. And it might provoke a war. If the war broke out, Iran probably uses the nuclear power to somewhere and it will be tragedy even for all other countries. So the “all other countries” should keep an eye on that relationship. It does not mean we should intervene into them easily.

 

 

Regardless of what is the reason for pursuing the nuclear power, that power can be exploited.

 

 

 

According to the article "‘Arab Spring’ and new players in the region."

Countries of Arab and the Middle East have a complex relationship. They can make a problem and war. So the other countries should intervene into them as well as US. But they should not get into physically and deeply. Countries of Arab and the Middle East should get a chance to settle by themselves peacefully. If they cannot, then we, the others can intervene into them to soothe. We do not have any right for poking into their business and telling them what to do.

 

 



New Place :)

^_^

It is horrible and when it comes to protection...

 

I was in Korea when the tragedy had occurred in Colorado on July 20, and I was even waiting for that movie, the dark knight rises, and I just started thinking about it, “why they did not or do not ban the gun?”

According to the article: “US: Shooting at Wisconsin mall injures at least 7”, in the Wisconsin, at least seven persons were injured by gunman and according to the article:”A guide to Mass Shootings in America,” there has been occurred so many accident by guns.
In my opinion, the US should block the way for getting guns.

 

According to The Hill’s article: “NRA endorses Romney as ‘only hope’ for firearms freedom,” the gun advocate claims that having the firearms is kind of freedom and they endorses Romney because, according to that article, he said “I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don't believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy.”

They, the gun advocate, also claim the gun protects their life and it keeps safe of their life.

 

However, I have strongly opposing opinion. In my country, having firearms is almost illegal and it is also hard to get one. So they rarely get though the accident or tragedy by guns.

If people want to keep safe, they have to throw their guns. If they do not want to be injured by gun, they should just ban it. According to the article:”Trayvon Martin's death: Should Florida repeal its 'dangerous' 'stand your ground' gun law?”, it will be real tragedy that someone who cannot figure out the situations is safe or not.

 

Energy Crisis and the War

It seems like the Crisis and the War.
The Crisis: We, energy consumer, almost burned out Energy source or fuel of earth.
To make things worse, there has enacted changing of climate such as Global Warming, Rising Sea-levels.
The War: People divided into two groups. Some people insist that Global Warming certainly exists and we should reduce the usage of fossil fuels for environment. To do this, according to their opinion, we should use an Alternative Energy or Green Energy.
The other group insists that Global Warming is non-exist phenomenon and phenomenon of changing of climate is temporary and it will find its place soon.
Also, according to their opinion, we do not need pay for other energy and we just can use previous kind of energy source from which is undiscovered.
Naturally, the basement of the issue is intertwined with political debates.

 

 

The Republican has second view, especially Mitt Romney. According to article of Yahoo news “Romney energy plan aims to expand drilling on federal land,” he insists that weakening the regulations on the energy industry will benefit for U.S citizen and it could make more jobs in the future.

They said changing the energy supply system from existing systems to new one (which is cleaner system) is cost too much and it will be huge waste.

Plus, according to article “The new gas boom,” in the Marcellus Shale could contain as much as 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas so he insists that we do not have to pay for new system.

Also, according to article of Yahoo news “Romney energy plan aims to expand drilling on federal land,” he wants to build the “Keystone pipeline” for which help bringing more oil from Canada and Mexico.


video about KEY STONE PIPE LINE http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

However I do not agree that Idea about Energy Policy. I think that is waste too, the idea of building pipe line. And also, according to article "TAUBE: How Romney could save the Keystone pipeline", that idea is unproven.

I also do not think Global Warming or Change of Climate certainly exist. In many scientist in Korea, have pointed out changing ecosystems and they insist the cause of changing is Global Warming.

On the contrary, according to article “Climate events are not proof of global warming,” the climate events that are pointed out for the proof of global warming are not proof for that.