Week #4 Is America Becoming More Unequal?

Historically, the United States has never been a fiscally equal country.  The incomes of its citizens has always been all over the board.  The period after World War II saw a time when equality was closest in history to becoming equal in the U.S.  (However, it wasn't even close) The 1950s and 60s produced a solid middle class, where most everyone had enough money to not only cover the costs of living, but could afford the extra 'wants.'

After the recession of the 1970s and 1980s, though, the income gap widened even more significantly.  Over the last 40 years, the middle class has been slowly disappearing.  The expenses of living have increased, but wages and overall incomes for the middle class have not.  Essentially, the people who identify as middle class today are living with much less than their parents did.

It must be noted, that overall, there has been a decrease of extreme poverty, and social conditions have improved, but incomes have not.

The wealth of the top 1% in the United States exceeds that of the bottom 98%.  Inequality is alive and present in one of the world's top first-world countries.
People who identify with the bottom 98% have voiced their concerns over the widening gap of wealth in the U.S. Since 2001, economic recovery has been weak by almost every measure of standard.  The one area where this doesn't apply is in corporate profits, which have seen a steady rise since the most recent recession.
Even though poverty has overall decreased in America's history, the U.S. still has one of the highest poverty rates for developed countries at 12.6% in 2006.  And that number has only increased in the 2000s.

On the other hand, corporations are needed to keep America running.  Since most of the wealth lies with 1% of the population, increasing taxes and trying to create equality could very well drive some of the wealthiest people out of the country.  The people who see corporations as a corner block of this country argue that living conditions for all citizens have overall improved.  There has been much progress in agriculture, construction and manufacturing, as well as in public health, nutrition, and in the longevity of life.
They also argue that since the need for physical capital has been replaced by human capital - the need for brainpower, there is greater access to good paying jobs for middle class - college educated people.  Social equality for people of different races, gender, religion, and sexual orientation has drastically improved also.

On a personal level, I come from a lower middle class family in central Nebraska.  Our main source of income is the family farm, and my mother's poverty-district teaching salary.  We never had more than we needed growing up, and money was constantly a source of stress for my parents.  My view point may be slighted in favor of the working class, because I have seen first hand the struggles poverty creates.  For me, hearing that some people live so lavishly and their incomes keep getting bigger, while the working class stays the same of diminishes, I get angry.  America is not equal.  Nor is it heading in the right direction concerning economic equality.  I acknowledge that the top 1% do pay the majority of the taxes, however, I also want to point out that their high level of taxes does not interrupt their carefree lifestyle.  Whereas a 14% income tax for my family nearly sinks us fiscally.

Week #3 The National Security Agency and Drone Warfare

National Security Agency:

Thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden, U.S. citizens and the rest of the world now know more about how the U.S. government has been spying on its citizens and on people who have contact with its citizens.  The major question is whether or not this is legal, and will American citizens allow the spying for the sake of national security?

Since 2001, when the Patriot Act was passed under the Bush administration, the government has legally had the right to tap into Verizon cell phone towers to monitor who their customers are calling, the duration of the call, and essentially track where the call is coming from.  It's not certain how long this has been going on, but it's been arguably legal since 2001, and has been happening since 2006 when the first whistleblower on the issue emerged.

Here's what's good about the NSA:  Congress has been briefed.  The NSA seemingly has been open with Congress on its surveillance programs, so it's not just one man or one agency calling the shots.  To some extent, the NSA is still held liable to Congress.
It protects our freedom.  The age old argument now about 'keeping terrorists out of our borders' can be used.  After 2001, when national pride hit an all time high in the U.S. citizens may have willingly agreed to the surveillance by the NSA.  It's a matter of 'Well, I don't have anything to hide, and if you don't then why should you care if the NSA wants to look for terrorists and stop another 9/11 from happening?'  On that front, a sense of national security is ensured, though its undecided how accurate the NSA surveillance really is at catching the bad guys.

Here's what's bad: The government is spying on it's citizens! I think this statement can evoke enough of a bad taste in your mouth that I need not continue with my explanation.  Since when is the land of the free (freedom of EVERYTHING) home to a government that spies on its citizens 24/7 and can use that private information to incriminate them?
The NSA supposedly trashes most of the information is it doesn't seem useful, however, if there is evidence that a crime is about to occur, the agency can turn that information over to law enforcement and the citizen can be incriminated.  A citizen can be incriminated by information sent through a text message, said over a phone call to his brother, or emailed his cousin.  Think about that.  The privacy of citizens in the United States has disappeared.  And after a surveillance program this extensive has been in place for several years already, its highly unlikely the program and spying will ever stop.

So our privacy is gone forever.  Personally I have not been in favor the the NSA surveillance program since I first heard about it.  I am all for the rally syndrome and evoking national pride, but my feelings stop the second I know the government has infringed on my rights.  No, I do not have anything to hide, but as a U.S. citizen I shouldn't have to prove my innocence by letting the government 'listen in on my life.'   I am innocent until proven guilty - the right way.


Drone Warfare:

The United States has been moving it's military campaigns steadily into unmanned warfare since the drones were first used in 1995.
While drones offer the U.S. military an easier and arguably safer way to fight it's enemies, there are many controversies surrounding their use.

Pros:
Drones offer a tactful way to fight enemies without losing human lives in battle.  In the United States' War on Terrorism, the enemy isn't completely defined.  The U.S. isn't fighting against a recognized country who has an established military.  Instead, the U.S. is fighting an idea. Terrorists organizations are loosely held together.  They are not organized in the traditional sense of the word, and so the campaign against them must not be either.  The military can successfully strike at its enemies without losing a single American life in the fight.
Drones are cheaper.  The military spends millions of dollars training soldiers for the highest level of air force skill.  However, when a pilot gets shot down, all that money and training disappears with the life.
When a drone is shot down, the only thing lost is the machine (which is still thousands -maybe millions of dollars cheaper than an airplane).

Cons:
Has war become dehumanized? With a simple push of a button by a pilot harbored safely miles away from the battle, hundreds of lives can be taken - civilian and terrorist lives alike.
In 2008, the United States' killed a U.S. citizen in a drone strike in the Middle East.  This is the fourth known occurance.  The incidents beg the question; does the U.S. government have the right to kill its own citizens (even if they are collaborating with terrorist organizations) by a drone strike without a fair trial?
When targeting terrorist organizations in mountainous regions, drone strikes offer the easiest route to taking out enemy camps.  However, the enemy camps have caught on, and have begun bringing along innocent women and children.  Thus, innocent civilians are the collateral damage in a drone strike.

On a personal level, I feel torn.  I feel the common overwhelming sense of American Pride, and will support the military wherever they are sent.  However, there are times where I do not support those who are in control of the military.  Above all, the loss of an innocent human life is not acceptable collateral damage.  If there is any chance at all that an innocent life could be taken in a drone strike, I must admit that I am not in favor of the strike.  However, I acknowledge how drastically that would slow the war effort down, and may not be truly possible.
If it were me pushing the button, I wouldn't be able to do it. I guess I'm just glad that decision is in someone else's hands.

Week #1 Is America Exceptional?

McClay, W. M. (2006). The Founding Nations. First Things.

Zinn, Howard. (2005) The Power and the Glory: Myths of American Exceptionalism.  Boston Review.

During America’s rise as an international authority over the past century, American exceptionalism has become a debate that’s slowly losing its legitimacy.

The idea is simple; those that believe America is exceptional believe the United States is superior to other nations.  Whether it was accomplished with divine intervention or because events just naturally happened, since the late 1800s, the United States has flown by standards of greatness previously set by other countries.  The idea of exceptionalism also follows the notion that Americans have high moral standards.  

Author Wilfred McClay enthusiastically writes in favor of American Exceptionalism, referencing the strong history of the United States. He focuses mainly on the past, because the U.S. had a relatively quicker rise in status than most countries have had.  McClay also comments on the beginning of the United States:

            “A constitutional republic like the United States is uniquely grounded in its foundational moment, it’s time of creation….It requires of us a willingness to be constantly looking back to our initiating promises and goals, in much the same way we would chart progress ….by reference to a master list of resolutions.”

By creating a government and constitution that has the ability to adjust to modern times, the United States could arguably be considered exceptional…..if it were still the 1800s.  In modern times, the freedom argument is not a legitimate basis for argument of American Exceptionalism.  Nearly every first and second world country (with a couple exceptions) enjoy basic freedoms. So that’s not what makes America great anymore.

Author Howard Zinn boldly argues against American Exceptionalism.  He also uses American history to back up his claims.  The first big stain on American history happened shortly after the country was settled by Europeans; the massacre of American Indians. 

Furthermore, Zinn criticizes the size of the American military (with more than 10,000 nuclear weapons and military bases all over the world, the U.S. easily has the world’s most expensive army.)  He strengthens his argument by noting that with the belief in divine intervention coupled with a massive military, our leaders could easily throw out the norms of human morality.  His reasoning throws out the idea of American moral eliteness, something that deeply splits the ideology of American Exceptionalism. 

On a more personal note, I do not believe America is still exceptional.  I whole-heartedly believe at one time, the United States created an example for other countries to follow into the future.  However, America has slowed its advancements down to a crawl.  For issues like universal healthcare, free (or at least cheap!) education, and distribution of wealth, the United States lacks sorely behind the rest of the modern world. 

And as for morals, I believe with our outstanding military power, America does not hold itself to the standards that it created for the rest of the world.  Depending on the official approval of Congress later this week, the United States could be heading into another Middle-Eastern war.  The conflict in Syria is not America’s doing, however with a military the size of America’s, peace-keeping missions are arguably its duty to the rest of the world.  What makes this area blurry is that the United States hasn’t always gone into conflict with the utmost of moral intentions, thus credibility has been lost. 

The rest of the world cannot tell America no.  The United States is still the top world economy, and its military could easily crush almost any other military in the world. 

But if the rest of the world does not trust us (due to lost credibility, then do we really have a right, let alone duty to police other nations in the world?