As you move into the next phase of your life, how will you try to affect change in the world regarding the issues studied in this course?

Sadly i don't believe i have it in me to be the next Keilburger, but u will make an attempt to positively impact the world around me in the future. Doing my part as a global citizen in the future to me means many things. It means to be fully aware on the issues that face us, it means to remember to recycle and to be eco friendly, it means to support poverty aid in whichever ways possible e.g. time preferably or money or supplies.

What is the most important skill that you’ve learned through your participation in this course, and how will you use it as you move on with your life?

The most important skill i have developed this year in the course is my growing ability to critically analyze a situation and asses the different impacts and possible solutions to it. By having this ability i am able to fully understand and become an informed member of society and possibly being a help to the situations at hand, further more this ability can help me in small scale when deliberating over a task and deciding on the best possible solution with the least repercussions.

What was the central theme for this course? Why?

1. The central focus of the course this year has been the arab springs movement. This is because it is the most volatile world issue at the time. This year we have looked at the arab isralie conflict, libya, syria, turkey, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and basicly every other arab country. The issues within these countires have a global impact which is why it has been the centrel theme of our course and the centrel topic published throught the media. 

There have been too many incidents in the United States involving a person wielding an easily accessible firearm and causing such a gruesome event similar to this. In my opinion the gun regulations and laws in the United States as a whole is way to lenient, yes some states have stricter gun laws than others but overall the laws aren’t strict enough. In the states according to the second amendment all Americans have the Right to Bare Arms. This amendment dates back to 1791, at that point in time it was felt to be necessary for all Americans to be armed and prepared to defend their country; it was a country of minutemen. In this day and age it is completely unnecessary for every citizen to be armed to protect their country, the US has one of the worlds best militaries. The debate can be made that the 2^nd amendment applies to security of person and defending ones home. I do not oppose the idea of protecting ones home and family within reasonable limits. Hypothetically if an aggressive perpetrator was to invade someone’s place of living and in this place of living there was a family (a wife or husband, possibly children) I don’t see a problem with protecting ones family within reason from the opposing danger if the danger is immanent. What I take issue with is the feeling that it is necessary to own military grade weapons. There is absolutely no need for an m16 to be possessed by the general public. Here in Canada you take a 10-hour course for non-restricted (long guns-shotguns and rifles) and another course for restricted (handguns). These courses teaches you safe handling, safe storage and some history of guns; after passing the test at the end with at least an 80% your paper work gets sent to the firearms office of your province, your name and some paper work then goes to an RCMP office and you undergo a background check once approved and licensed you are allowed to fire arms that fit the category of course you took. In the states it is much simpler to obtain a fire arm for example in some states you can walk into a Wal-Mart and simply purchase a firearm or in some cases you can simply get a rifle just by opening an account at a bank as featured in the documentary Bowling for Columbine. In my opinion the Connecticut school shooting was likely preventable just as a lot of violence in society relating to firearms is. With safe and proper storage of firearms, proper handling, and the allowance of reasonable firearms (not military equivalent) violent acts in society with firearms are preventable not by adding more guns to the situation like some people believe should be done (by this I mean the idea of armed guards in school or arming teachers), but by creating stricter policies and abiding by them.

What makes a modern terrorist

There are two main causes in creating terrorism. The first  being Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these. The other being the belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.

Religion in the government

This is a very touchy issue and has valid points to both sides of the argument, personally i believe that religion does have a place in the government but not a large place. after all the  canadian charter of rights and freedoms says that "canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of god and the rule of law." law and government is somewhat based on the traditions of a country, typically traditions and customs are built well into the religions of the people and so it is necessary for laws to somewhat reflect and or accommodate these traditions. "when in rome" as i like to put it. I believe that religion has a place in government as long as other countries believe it does, if the day arises that every single country in the world with no exemptions decides to strike out religion from their government only then is it fair for canada too.

Food Dumping

It is uncommon for the members of western civilization to feel that providing aid to poverty ridden nations immoral yet there is one way of aid that is, food dumping. In the last decade or so, the concept of developed nations providing third world countries with food via emergency relief organizations has shifted in the eyes of some, who claim that due to the many consequences of offering free food to these places. These consequences include a failure to compete from local farmers, a drop off in the economic progression of a country due to lack of necessity, and the permanent loss of agricultural land resulting from absence of government funding, is actually harmful and can contribute to the cycle of poverty. While it may seem to us that helping less fortunate nations by shipping them crates of food free of cost is something that can only help, this is not true. Farmers can no longer compete or turn a profit from their harvests or crop, this is because the international support comes at a rate which is significantly below the market average and so becomes the first choice of anyone in the  area. Also, the process of rebuilding or repairing a nation, and addressing the nation's pressing issues, can be brushed under the rug by misguided politicians when food aid is supplied, it is easy to step back and ignore the issues when the country's people are no longer dying from starvation. In this sense, it is easy to see how Food Dumping is an unfortunate, but real concept, and that perhaps we should re-evaluate how we as developed nations come to the aid of those less fortunate. Personally i believe the best possible solution would be to provide aid to the farmers in these countries, the aid being to help them grow crops at a faster rate and in better ways.