Rapidly Increasing Population

A big issue is rising in underdeveloped countries. This problem is a rapidly increase in population. Currently there are over seven billion people in the world and will continue to expand rapidly for decades. The United Nations announced that if this holds true and population continues to grow, taxing natural resources will become an option if countries cannot better manage the population increase. With this follows issues with resources, deforestation, food security, global prices, and many more problems.

There are four demographic stages. Stage one is where the birth rates and death rates in a country are both high.  Step two is when the birth rate remains high but the mortality rate is decreasing. Step three is where the birth rate decreases and the death rate is lower. In this stage, the change in the economy altered the ideas of having larger families as technology improves and prices for everything rises. For these reason, people want fewer children. Step four is where the birth rate and mortality are both relatively low. Developed and stable populated countries, like Sweden are in this transition.  Until countries become more developed and equal out the birth rates and death rates, the population will continue to grow rapidly. In countries with low-technology and a more agricultural basis, more children are needed and are seen as having an enhanced economic status. Most of these countries are developing countries. Peter Ogunjuyigbe, a demographer at Obafemi Awolowo University in the small central city of Ile-Ife said, “If you don’t take care of population, schools can’t cope, hospitals can’t cope, there’s not enough housing — there’s nothing you can do to have economic development.”

There are 300 million plus people in Nigeria which is about the population size of present day United States. They live in a country about the size of New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada.

Nearly all of the increase is in sub-Saharan Africa, where the population rise far outstrips economic expansion. Of the roughly 20 countries where women average more than five children, almost all are in the region. Internationally, the African population boom means more illegal immigration, already at a high, according to Frontex, the European border agency. There are up to 400,000 undocumented Africans in the United States.

The United Nations estimates that the global population will stabilize at 10 billion in 2100, assuming that declining birthrates will eventually yield a global average of 2.1 children per woman. At a rate of even 2.6, Dr. Guengant said, the number becomes 16 billion. Sub-Saharan Africa, which now accounts for 12 percent of the world’s population, will account for more than a third by 2100, by many projections. The projections are always changing however.

According to the NY Times in Nigeria, “At Alapere Primary School, more than 100 students cram into most classrooms, two to a desk. As graduates pour out of high schools and universities, Nigeria’s unemployment rate is nearly 50 percent for people in urban areas ages 15 to 24 — driving crime and discontent.”

There are definite problem with increasing populations, not just in African countries but different countries around the world. Some cultures believe in having many children, as many as 11 or 12, which makes it difficult to change their beliefs. I don’t necessarily think people should be told how many kids they can or cannot have but they need to be informed of issues that involve population and having children.

Buffet Rule

Can the wealthy share?

In the process of being passed is the Buffet Rule. This would make Americans who make over $2 million dollars pay a higher tax percentage. For those who make $1 million to $2 million to always pay a higher tax percentage. President Obama is really taking an interest in the Buffet Rule. However, several people believe that it fits in his plan so well because the idea behind it is. “Hey, look at this and forget about that huge debt over there.” The estimated revenue generated from this would be $4.7 billion dollars a year. Now that may seem like a lot of money. Well it is, to us working folks, however, that massive $4.7 billion dollars is chump change. Statistically showing $4.7 billion dollars would only cover 11 hours worth of spending in a year. It’s crazy how America was ideally set up to be “help a brother out” kind of philosophy. Yet, there are several people that make multi million dollars and do not want to help the “little” guy out. That is what I do not fully understand. How the only people who are making a big fuss about the Buffet Rule are those who will it affect. I understand where they are coming from. Yet, are you really serious? The percentage that you will pay is probably what you make in a two weeks. Even if the Buffet Rule doesn’t make a dent in the debt, it still will help and make those who may not deserve the millions they make to help the average American out. 

Concealed Carry

Is having a license to carry a concealed weapon really necessary? The second amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the “right to bear arms”.  Being a Texan and a gun owner, I am one hundred percent for this amendment but is allowing someone to carry a weapon on them in pubic going a little too far? The obvious reason for someone to get their concealed carry license is for “self-defense” but honestly how many times is someone going to end up in a situation where they would need to use a firearm? I understand that depending on someone’s line of work, they may need it more than others. Everyone that I know who has a concealed carry license is very responsible and careful. For example, they don’t carry their weapon when they know they are going to be consuming alcohol or if they are in a professional work environment. Also not just anyone can get a license to carry gun, In Nebraska, some of the requirements to apply for a concealed carry; you must be 21, you cannot be a convicted felon or been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of violence, you cannot be mentally ill, and you must be a citizen of the United States. So I think this does a good job of eliminating the people with the bad intentions of a firearm but really what is keeping someone from carrying a handgun?

I really can’t say if I am for or against this law. I will probably end up getting my concealed carry license just because I can but if something were to happen and you could no longer get a license to carry a handgun, it really wouldn’t bother me.

Capitalism or Socialism?!? Is it better to have low inequality or high inequality? Which system is more productive with political movements, economic coordination, and overall changes? What are the differences between ideas and philosophy? The main question is which system would an individual prefer to live under and why? Recently US leaders such as the current president have slowly moved the nation toward a socialist system with a health care system to benefit all. Was this a public relations stunt to win voters from middle and poor class Americans? Yes and it will ruin the US health system because it has been build around a capitalist base. In my opinion Socialism is a broken system because it holds equality of every citizen extremely high, but how does a socialist system work well simply steals from oh everyone and redistributed back to cover socialist programs and processes.

            First of all we will start off with the basic differences between the two systems will political movements, economic coordination, overall changes. In this article Capitalism v. Socialism it highlights and explains different political movements within the systems like in capitalism there has been libertarianism and classical liberalism. Next in the economic coordination, capitalism has developed through markets which in this article Capitalism v. Socialism displays that there are free markets and regulated markets that drive the progress of capitalist economies.  Then in the change area of these two systems the way of change in capitalism is explained in this article Capitalism v. Socialism as, “Fast change within the system. In theory, the relationship between buyer and seller (the market) is what fuels what is produced.” While in the Socialist change arena change is showed in this article Capitalism v. Socialism as, “Government in a Communist-state is the agent of change rather than any market or desire on the part of consumers. Change by government can be swift or slow, depending on change in ideology or even whim.” Finally in philosophy and ideas capitalism views these two as shown in this article Capitalism v. Socialism as, “Capital (or the "means of production") is owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits for private owners or shareholders. Emphasis on individual profit rather than on workers or society as a whole. Laissez-faire means to "let do" opposed to government efforts to help poor workers. Not looking out for general welfare. Rather competition, self determination, allowing for creativity, individual profit. Based on consumer desire.” Then in philosophy and ideas socialism views these two as shown in this article Capitalism v. Socialism as, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. Emphasis on profit being distributed among the society or workforce in addition to receiving a wage. All people should be given an equal beginning. Workers should have most say in their factory's management. Looking out for general welfare. Control of production by ideology rather than consumer desires.”

Which system is it better for an individual to live under well its capitalism because one doesn’t need to sacrifice for everyone and expensive government programs that cut deep into an individual’s paycheck such as under the socialist system. The individual under capitalism only has to worry about middle to low taxes for his state as well as programs he or she wants to support. The main focus is that under capitalism the market, producer, and consumer rule, but under socialism the government rules and determines what is best for everyone.

-Will

Come On, You Know You Want To. . .

I know this topic has been covered by several people in this blog already, but, as it's my last post, I couldn't think of anything worthier of my time. This is an issue most people feel strongly about, and I count myself among them. I am extremely pro-gay marriage, and I don't use the word "extremely" very often. (In fact, I don't think I use it in relation to any other topic or situation.) So, that being said, consider this your last warning. My position on the subject is clear.

First, I'm not even personally in favor of marriage at all. I have no desire to ever marry anyone, but that's my choice, and I think it should be a choice for every American, not just those who are heterosexual.

Opponents of gay marriage bring up legal reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be accepted. Some say that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to other things, such as the legalization of pedophilia and polygamy. And the weakest legal argument says that same-sex marriage would be granting gays a "special" right.

Neither of these makes sense.

The "slippery-slope" argument is perhaps the trickiest to argue against, but there is still evidence demonstrating the reverse of this "slip" to be true. But, first, I suggest the opposition examine the current regulations on marriage a little more closely. As it stands, rapists, convicts, and even child molesters are allowed to marry, so, by not letting gays marry because it will supposedly lead to worse things, we as a country are saying that being gay is worse than being a rapist, murderer, or child molester. Needless to say, I strongly disagree.

But, let's examine that evidence disproving the slippery slope theory. Gay marriage has been legalized in 6 Scandinavian countries, some (like Denmark) for over 20 years, and so far there's been no legalization of polygamy or bestiality, contrary to what opponents had predicted. And, also contrary to what many people who oppose gay marriage might say, gay marriage actually seems to have strengthened the bonds of traditional marriage, at least statistically speaking. Since the legalization of gay marriage, marriage rates in those same Scandinavian countries have increased significantly, while divorce rates remain basically unchanged.

The argument against the legalization of gay marriage that says granting marriage licenses to a gay couple would be granting them a "special privilege" is especially nonsensical. Exactly what about making homosexual couples equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the law is declaring them "special"? If gay marriage is allowed, then discrimination would be less prevalent. By saying that gay marriage is not allowed, we are discriminating against that particular sexual orientation, thus making heterosexual couples the ones who are in fact "special."

Although these arguments against gay marriage seem ridiculous and biased, they're nevertheless still widely accepted as legitimate. But, those are just the two main legal arguments. I haven't gotten to the moral ones yet.

These moral arguments are used more often in debates on gay marriage than their legal counterparts, though they're also easier to disprove, so it about evens out.

One argument is that gay marriage is just morally unjustifiable, that it's simply wrong. But, why would that be the case? Well, people attempting this position generally come from a religious background and assume most people share their belief system, as if it were a universal Truth recognized by everyone. Such an assumption is ludicrous and, to me, personally offensive. A line used (and abused) that I hear often is "the separation of Church and State." But, as I understand it, and I'm by no means an expert, this phrase is mainly used to ensure that the State is not governed by the Church, that there will be a freedom of and from religion, as one moral standard may not necessarily be appropriate for the entire diverse population of this country. I repeat, freedom of religion also means freedom from it, and forcing a specific religious view (i.e. gay marriage is somehow inherently wrong) on the general population is an infringement on the freedom and rights of that selfsame population. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing "wrong" with gay marriage. It's religion that's muddying the issue.

Another argument is that heterosexual marriage is traditionally the sacred institution between a man and a woman. This argument is weak at best. The idea that "that's the way it's always been done, so that's the way we have to keep doing it," doesn't fly in a logical debate. If we always stuck to tradition, there would never be any progress or reform. Ask any woman or any person who's not white if he or she wants to stick with the "traditional" way of doing things in this country, and you'll get a loud, resounding "NO!" Just because it's been done in the past does not mean it's the correct way to behave now.

These are the two main moral arguments against homosexual marriage, but there are some arguments against gay marriage that don't fit in with either the legal or moral ones. Here, I mean the popular positions that gay marriage would make a mockery of the institution, or that it would destroy heterosexual marriage, or even that it's a bad environment in which to raise a child.

So it's been said that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. People who oppose gay marriage use this as the base of their argument, and with this as a premise it would indeed be hard to argue in favor of gay marriage. Supposing this were true, logically, by expanding the definition of marriage to include a union of two members of the same sex where before it was two (or further back, more than two) members of different sexes, you change the very institution of marriage. But, the premise is unsound. It is not entirely factual to say that marriage is but a sacred union because if that were the case, it would imply a strictly religious or spiritual contract (going by the use of the word "sacred"), and the State would not be involved at all. But, states issue marriage licenses. Therefore, marriage is also the domain of the State. It is in fact both, and the issue of gay marriage is not truly to do with the religious ceremony at all—as that pesky freedom of religion clause sees to—but is in fact concerned with the State institution of marriage, the civil marriage (which is why it would be a law or amendment and not a religious creed or commandment—because it's got nothing to do with the Church). Non-religious heterosexual couples have the same marriage rights as their religious heterosexual counterparts. What gay marriage advocates are struggling for is the same rights extended to homosexual couples. The State is not the Church, and it's not up to the Church to decide what happens in the State, or whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Let the State dictate what happens in the State.

Also, I feel the need to point out that marriage wasn't always, and in some places still isn't, a case of two people courting and agreeing to wed. Arranged marriages used to be the norm, and they were essentially business contracts. The goal was to solidify the line of succession, so that a man was assured his estate would, upon his death, go to his legitimate children. Historically, love matches were rare and didn't seem to end well. Marriage, up until the modern era—late 19th to early 20th Centuries—was a union, all right, but generally one of families, estates, loyalties, money, and the like, not love. So, just keep in mind that what we Americans think of today as marriage is actually nontraditional within the context of the history of the institution.

Another argument says that a homosexual marriage is bad for children and that when two parents of the same sex are raising kids there is the potential for psychological damage. Fortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. There is no evidence that gay marriage impacts children in any other way but positive. Any negatives (such as an increased likelihood to be bullied) occur as a result of the actions of people outside the immediate family—that is, people other than the parents and children.

Another argument I've heard quite often is one declaring marriage's sole purpose as procreation. If that were the case, straight people who are infertile would not be allowed to marry, and I can't imagine the government intervening in the marriage of two such people without a whole lot of debate. That would be an infringement on the couple's privacy. Also, there are married couples who choose not to have children. Should they not be allowed that choice? Why, of course not. That would be absurd. Just because you're married doesn't mean you have to have kids. One is not contingent upon the other, not anymore, not for awhile now.

The last argument I'll cover is the most ridiculous. It suggests that gay marriage is impossible because people who are homosexual are somehow incapable of maintaining lasting relationships. This may sound preposterous, but I swear I've actually heard someone legitimately argue this. It seems there are actually people out there who genuinely believe gay couples can't sustain long-term relationships and are geared solely towards wild one night stands and other brief kinds of intimacy. This claim is proven unfounded by the divorce rates in Norway and Denmark for people who are homosexual, showing the numbers are neither significantly higher nor lower than those of couples in heterosexual marriages.

So far, the data shows no difference between the two.

Those are the arguments and my own assessment of them. In short, gay marriage makes sense no matter how you look at it—unless you're covering your eyes and pretending it doesn't exist.

Hate speech

Peter Brimelow appeared on a panel discussing multiculturalism during CPAC 2012, Conservative Political Action Conference, and gave a talk titled "The Failure of multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity." During the panel discussion, Brimelow and other panelists said "immigration is polluting America."

Brimelow, an immigrant from Great Britain, expresses his fear of the loss of America's white majority, blames non-white immigrants for social and economic problems and urges the Republican Party to give up on minority voters and focus on winning the white vote. He also said that "a New York City subway is the same as an Immigration and Naturalization Service waiting room."

Brimelow is the editor and founder of VDARE.com, a noted anti-immigration website that has been designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of its hateful messaging.

Brimelow said he's opposed to not only illegal immigration, but legal immigration too. He said it is creating a Spanish speaking underclass parallel to the African American underclass. He said "they are on welfare, they are not doing any kind of work - at least not legal work - and their

children are having a terrible time. They are dropping out of school, there is an increase in teenage pregnancy"

The irony is that Brimelow is an immigrant himself and indicated that he's even opposed to legal immigration. It looks like he hasn't considered self-deporting. The big problem for CPAC is that he is a noted racist, and his anti-diversity message was legitimized during a panel that was sponsored by ProEnglish, an organization advocating for English as the official language.

Al Cardenas, the Chairman of The American Conservative Union, the group who puts on the CPAC conference, is looking into the Brimelow brouhaha. He had recently penned a piece for Fox News Latino, stating, "Our job at CPAC is to broaden our message to all Americans - including Hispanics." However, Allowing Brimelow and his counterparts to talk about how Latino immigrants are completely dysfunctional does not convey "mi casa es su casa" very well to this growing population.

I think his beliefs are vile, dangerous. He definitely looks like racist. I think brimelow's speech was not appropriate because hate speech in public place can have a great ripple effect than anticipated.

Hackers

 Anonymous claims, “We are a decentralized non-violent resistance movement, which seeks to restore rule of law and fight back against the organized criminal class.” This activist group greatly practices and enforces the act of freedom of speech through protests, but what makes them so different is the kind of protests they hold so powerfully just at their fingertips. Anonymous protests through the World Wide Web through an act of hacking, in the eyes of authority, its a cyber crime; it's a international activist group that, “Has no leadership just influence, influence of thought.” Although this group is labeled as hackers, they claim, “Anonymous is an identity, it is the art of being indignant.” I believe what they are doing is an effective way of protesting, even though this group is breaking numerous laws. 

This group is widely known for its persistent acts of threatening and acting against groups, companies, and political issues that they do not agree with or believe are causing harm/being unfair to the common people. It first started out as a site called 4chan, an “Anti-Facebook” site that encouraged the use of photos of comments with a plethora of users but remaining anonymous. This website sparked the start of the hactivist (term used for an activist that hacks) group Anonymous; what paved the way to making this group famous was when they made large credit card companies temporarily shut down, such as Mastercard and Visa along with other big corporations Amazon and Paypal. What uprooted this was Anonymous’s support of a website called Wikileaks, a website used by whistleblowers (a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities occurring in a government) to release classified material such as information about world leaders, diplomats and their officials, diplomatic missions, and violations and allegations under the governmental political department. Wikileaks used these large credit card companies to receive donations to support its movement, their claim, “We are forced to put all our efforts into raising funds to ensure our economic survival. For almost a year we have been fighting an unlawful financial blockade. We cannot allow giant US finance companies to decide how the whole world votes with its pocket. Our battles are costly. We need your support to fight back. Please donate now” (Wikileaks.org). Since the credit card companies seized the payments going to this movement, Anonymous supported Wikileaks’ unlawful banking blockade placed upon them by hacking into the credit card companies causing them to be offline as a result of the hacking assault. 

Looking through Anonymous's past, present, and even future claims, their archives show that they perform some kind of act almost every day. Mostly stating or leaking information of allegations made through political or government standpoints. They obviously upset these big companies, hindering their services and sales, I think it is a different effective way of protesting, and they should keep doing what they're doing. Except some cyber crimes are sometimes a little outrageous, I believe Anonymous should only act upon issues that are plausible to protest. 

Reed Hanke

Cyber bullying

Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can’t ever harm me.  Really?  Words can’t hurt you or make you feel bad?  If words can’t hurt you, then maybe a video of you having homosexual sex released on-line will.

On September 22, 2010, a freshman at Rutger’s University, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide.  He jumped off the George Washington Bridge and drowned in the Hudson River.   You might be wondering now, “why did he kill himself”?   He jumped because his roommate, Dharun Ravi, hid a webcam in their dorm room and recorded Tyler having sex with another man.

The man he had had sexual relations with that night (identified as M.B.) testified and said he had noticed the Web camera aimed directly at Clementi’s bed. The 32 year old said he had met Tyler on a social networking site for gay men, spoke on-line, sent text messages to each other, and met three times in the student’s dorm room.

Ravi said he set up the video camera because he didn’t trust his roommate’s visitor.  He later tweeted that day that when he reviewed the video footage and said “turned on my webcam” and witnessed his roommate “making out with a dude”.  Later that night (after broadcasting the video) he tried to apologize to Tyler saying that he had no problem with him being gay.

Last Friday Ravi was found guilty of all counts from a New Jersey jury.  He was convicted of invasion of privacy, witness tampering, hindering apprehension, tampering with physical evidence, and the more severe charges of bias intimidation.  The prosecutors were able to prove that Ravi’s actions were committed due to gay bias.  He openly admitted on the first day he “was bothered by Tyler Clementi’s sexual orientation”.  Since he committed a hate crime towards homosexuals, his jail time doubles. If he gets the maximum of five years, he would then need to serve ten years in jail.  His sentencing will be on May 21.  The maximum he could get is ten years in prison and deportation to his native country of India.   Ravi was not charged with Tyler’s death directly.  The prosecution offered Ravi a plea deal to avoid jail time in exchange for counseling, doing 600 hours of community service, and giving any information on who the man in the video with Clementi is.  He turned down the plea deal.

  The reason this is such a big case is because of New Jersey’s law.  It says if one records someone engaged in an intimate act without their knowledge and broadcast it, it is a criminal offense.  Paul Callan, a CNN legal analyst, was quoted saying the decision was “unprecedented” and it tells the rest of the country what could happen to them if they use unauthorized webcam usage in a time of expanding social media.  

In the US, we have the freedom of speech.  However, do we have the freedom to stream videos of people without their consent? I don’t believe we do.  I disagree with Paul Callan opinion on the matter.  I am in favor of the criminal law that New Jersey has in place on the matter.  Tyler took his life, but there is a bright side to the story.  This case may shine some light on on-line bullying.  

Morality in Politics

A lot of the posts that I have written have gotten criticized about separation of church and state. My question is where does this morality come from? In politics there is supposed to be a clear separation between the church and the state. People are not allowed to talk about their spiritual beliefs or let them affect their decision making in politics. Can someone really take the thing that gives them their morals out of the equation? I know that I draw all my morals from a belief in Jesus Christ. Without a belief in something, there can be no objective morals at all. They would all simply be subjective. If morals are considered subjective, than they are based upon personal beliefs on morals. If they are based on personal beliefs than some people could think that it was alright to murder or to rape, and they could not be condemned for their actions. Instead we have objective morals that are based upon beliefs that people do have.

In fact, there was a case where two boys went out and murdered a man because they had heard that morals are simply subjective. They were tried and found guilty of murder. Their defense was that because their was no God, they were not guilty of doing anything wrong. They just simply were doing what their subjective morals were. The judge did not rule in favor of the students however, so does this not say that there are morals that we find objectively true? How are we able to punish anyone for anything if morals are not considered objective?

Many people also believe that, based on evolution and survival of the fittest, the "objective"morals that we have are those in which helps are species reproduce and progress. This idea can clearly be falsified by the example of rape. Rape is considered morally wrong by people, but it helps further the species. Therefore, not all morals are based on this.

For these reasons I do not believe that a true separation of church and state is even possible let alone practical. Too many people believe they are thinking morally while keeping religion out of it, but in actuality, they do not have the ability to have objective morals.

What Change?

If you think back to the 2008 Presidential election you'll remember a lot of vague promises from the candidates, especially from the Democratic nominee Barrack Obama. His main platform was “Change”. He traveled the nation speaking about all the different ways he was going to change our nation, and how our nation was all out of sorts. Well Obama rode the winds of change to a victory placing him as the President of the United States of America.

Four years later President Obama's first term is coming to a close, and he is seeking reelection to continue his platform of change. The only problem is most of the population is finding themselves asking, “What change?” Only four presidents who were running for reelection have failed in our nations history, and what they all had in common was a lot of failed promises. According to an article by Michael Medved of The Daily Beast, if the Republicans want to continue the formula to beat incumbents they need to point out Obama's failures. One of Obama's greatest disappointments in office was one of his greatest promises. The promise he made to bring our nation together and dissolve the lines drawn by partisan separation has fallen terribly short. It seems as if we are just as divided as we were four short years ago.

Even Obama supporters can't possibly say that he has truly started to make an impact on bipartisanship in Congress. One of Obama's “greatest achievements” is his healthcare bill, but if you look closer you'll find that it passed through Congress without one single Republican vote in either house. Where's the agreement and unity in that? Even descending popularity polls show that the American people are becoming weary of the Obama administration and the lack of change in our nation.

There have also been several other promises proposed by Obama during his presidential campaign in 2008 that have yet to be fufilled. Some of the issues including, healthcare, taxes, and the growing national debt have been getting worse before better. The national debt has nearly tripled since the Obama administration has taken office, and doesn't seem to be getting smaller any time soon. Lately an issue that has everyone in America upset is skyrocketing gas prices. It's empty promises and failed attempts to improve our nation that leave Americans reflecting on what was promised as change.

Most Americans can't even really tell you why they voted for Obama let alone the actual issues inside his platform. I think Americans need to learn from these last four years that we cannot simply base our vote on popularity, eloquent speaking, and especially not based on a single vague word. I hope that more people will do their homework on the candidates in the 2012 election and make an informed decision about who they like best, not who the media or friends favor.  

The Most Powerful People in America

The Most Powerful People in America

It is estimated that an American sees an average of 5,000 advertisements a day. (NY Times) Everywhere we go there are advertisements all around us, and we do not even consciously notice the majority of them. Most of the ads are things like a logo or trademark, but they are everywhere one looks. These ads are incredibly strong at determining what products we purchase and brands we support. Good and powerful advertisements can take a product to whole new levels. The power of advertisement and media goes way beyond the purchasing of products.

The main source of information in all societies is media. Newspapers, Internet articles, news on television, and radio shows are the main ways in which people receive their information and opinions on the world. The media is arguably the most powerful thing in a society. Like ads, the media tries to portray themselves as the best source of information for consumers. Regardless of what happens in the world, it is the media we look to for the information and they choose what they report on. The media has the power to back candidates, or cover certain issues more than others. The way in which the media portrays events influences the way people look and regard issues.

The media is the single most deciding factor in the Presidential elections. By using simple phrases such as, “the frontrunner” or “the favorite”, those ill informed viewers are greatly influenced as to whom they will vote for. The media can choose to report on certain candidates more than others. By refusing to report on certain candidates, the media can completely crush candidate’s campaigns. Lets look at Sarah Palin for example. The media exposed every mistake and flaw she had and after a little while she became the laughing stock of America. While Sarah Palin was being ridiculed all over the media, President Obama was getting away with flaws in his past that no one should ever get away with. One of these was his participation with ACORN, which was casting false ballots in Florida using names such as Mickey Mouse. Another example, which does not get brought up, is President Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, who bombed federal agencies in the 70’s and is quoted as saying he wished he would of bombed more. Bill Ayers is a terrorist and self proclaimed communist. If there were a republican doing these types of things they would get blown apart and blasted as Newt Gingrich is right now for his previous love life and as Sarah Palin did for her personal life.

In my opinion it is scary how much power the media has in our society today. With the majority of the news stations being incredibly left winged and liberal, there is only one side of the issue reported on. The media leaves out many important things because they are protecting candidates and are worried about their own agendas first. Mitt Romney is most likely going to win the Republican nomination even though he is not the most conservative, or republican candidate in the running. The media has too much power in America and they are leading our country in the wrong direction.