Facts and Questions from Video

Facts:

1. "Greystone" was the name of the CIA's plan of attack on the terrorists from 9-11.
2. George Bush launched an international attack on Afghanistan to do whatever it took to find the information they needed to protect the citizens of the United States.
3. John Rizzo established a prison system run by the CIA in alliance with other countries to isolate the people they captured
4. The Terrorist Surveillance Program allowed the CIA to tap phones of citizens without authority
5. $3 billion were used for private contractors to collect cyber data.
6. During Obama's administration, Congress created a bill for the CIA to lose authority of the intelligence agency and it was given to a "Director of National Intelligence."
7. Due to the threats that arose, government debated cancelling Obama's inaguration.
8. Obama had a $3.4 billion building built for military purposes, bigger than the Pentagon.
9. After Obama's operation, U.S. soldiers captured and killed Osama Bin Laden
10. There are over 17,000 secret intelligence locations in the U.S. 

Questions:

1. Why would the government keep their "blueprint" for military action from the public?
2. How did the early liberation of Afghanistan impact the rest of the war?
3. Was the CIA using too harsh of techniques during their attacks?
4. Is it fair for the military and government to hide their policies from the people?
5. Did the U.S have enough probable cause to invade Iraq and attack Saddam Hussein?
6. Did the Terrorist Surveillance Program violate citizens rights?
7. How did the lack of weapons of mass destruction found impact the credibility of U.S. intelligence forces?
8. How did the anxiety from threats affect Obama during his inaguration?
9. Do you think the government should focus more on foreign affairs or on their own homeland security?
10. Do you think Obama should have created his own military plan or was he right to keep the procedures Bush set in place?

Interview Reflection

Today I had the joy of interviewing my friend Nick about the topics that we have covered in Chapter 1. Usually friends don't spend time discussing the Constitution or popular sovereignty, but I found it interesting to hear what he had to say as a former AP-Government student. I started by asking him what he thought the purpose of government was and how the citizens of the United States should be involved. He was a firm believer of giving the power to the people as much as possible. He constantly reminded that the country is made up of the citizens, and although they elect leaders, they ultimately control the destiny of our country as a whole. Based on that statement, I followed up asking if he would prefer a direct democracy or an indirect democracy which we currently have. i thought our system was fine, but he changed my mind. Sure having the people vote on everything may be a slower process, but oftentimes the politicians we elect do not fulfill their promises and are not trustworthy. "With a direct democracy, people get exactly what they want." I also discovered my friend to be ultra conservative when he said government involvement in society should be very limited and that they should give the people space. I concluded my interview talking about the overall function of government and whether or not compromising is good for politics. Nick said the government is obviously successful because of how long it has survived and the hardships it has outlasted, but believes the strong differences among political parties is not good. But he goes on to say that although you need compromise to get things done in government. However, by doing that, you will never accomplish what you set out to do so it eventually fails. In conclusion, I enjoyed hearing a friend's opinion on these subjects because it offered me insight and allowed me to get to know his political views.

A People's History of the United States

What I felt was most compelling about this reading was the factual evidence the author had about the Founding Fathers looking out for their own economic interest when writing the Constitution. Charles Beard made an interesting point when he said the rich either directly run the government or controls how the government operates. At first I thought it was a radical opinion, but he went on to back his opinion with fact-based answers. First off, the majority of the people who ratified the Constitution were wealthy, so they were keen on the idea of establishing a strong central government because taxes, tariffs, and all money issues could be in their favor. Obviously this was bad for small farmers which ended up starting Shays' Rebellion. The rebellion was quickly shot down by the wealthy politicians who were scared this example may spread.So they changed their ways to please everyone. Beard explained it best when he said the Constitution serves the interests of the wealthy elite, but does enough for the middle class to gain their popular support. This provides unity and a buffer between the lower class. The Bill of Rights was actually just a way to show the government cared about the citizens rights, even though those rights aren't fully protected. In conclusion, although the Constitution seems to be looking out for the well being of society, it actually is made for the well being of the upper class and the economic interests of the Founding Fathers.

Questions: 
1) Do you think politicians in today's society still look out for their own economic self interests?
2) What does the term "contending powers" mean?
3) How has the distribution of wealth changed over time?