During the past year, social media have taken on an important role for revolutionaries in the Middle East, protesters here at home and politicians across the world.

The Arab Spring’s explosive growth would have been largely impossible without the use of social media. Protesters looking to overthrow dictators and install democracies organized on Facebook and Twitter and shared YouTube videos of brutal crackdowns. Their actions online made it easier to mobilize, but governments would not have fallen without acts of courage, said Timothy Boudreau, Associate Professor of Journalism.

“Social media helped the protesters communicate and organize much more effectively, but the protesters posed a real threat only when they took to the streets and put their lives on the line,” Boudreau said.

Many countries have threatened to arrest bloggers who are accused of spreading “malicious rumors,” according to a report by Reuters examining the impact of social media. Twitter announced in late January it will allow for country-specific censorship, sparking outrage from internet users across the world.

Here in the United States, social media are also having an enormous impact on the political landscape.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has used social media to organize and mobilize thousands of protesters around the country, and eventually around the world, in a similar way to the Arab Spring protesters. This has allowed OWS to spread around the globe at a pace previously unimaginable.

Internet users have also had an impact on lawmakers on Capitol Hill. After websites like Wikipedia and Reddit shut down for a whole day to protest the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act  and Protect IP Act on Jan. 18, the number of opponents to the bill in Congress more than tripled from 31 to 101, according to ProPublica.org. The bill has since been shelved.

As the 2012 elections heat up, social media will continue to leave its mark on American politics.

“I think candidates are using all available tools, including social media, to reach voters,” said Orlando Perez, political science professor and department chairman. ”Studies have shown that repeated personal contact with the voters is the most effective way of getting people to support a candidate.”

President Barack Obama, who was the first presidential candidate to effectively use social media in a presidential campaign, recently held a question-and-answer session via YouTube and Google+ with a group of people, showing the appeal of directly speaking to voters without the use of traditional news outlets.

“Obama’s campaign seems more adept at using social media, but that might be because his supporters tend to skew younger than the GOP’s,” Boudreau said.

Romney won with 46 percent of the vote. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich came in second with 32 percent, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum finished third with 13 percent, and Texas Rep. Ron Paul ended the night in fourth with 7 percent.

Romney now has accumulated 84 of the 1,144 delegates needed to win the GOP nomination.

Romney’s victory follows a week and a half of heated campaigning between him and Gingrich. CNN reported 93 percent of advertisements put out by candidates and super PACs in Florida were negative. However, CNN’s exit polls found only 39 percent of voters were impacted by the ads.

CNN’s exit polls also found a large gender gap between Romney and Gingrich. Romney beat Gingrich by 5 percent among men, but won over women by a 22 percent margin.

Romney again used his acceptance speech to criticize President Barack Obama, saying he “demonizes” the American economy.

“Mr. President, you were elected to lead, you chose to follow, and now it’s time for you to get out of the way,” Romney said.

Gingrich spoke to supporters in front of a banner that said “46 States to Go.” He also criticized Obama, but drew distinctions between him and Romney.

“It is now clear that this will be a two-person race between the Conservative Leader Newt Gingrich and the Massachusetts Moderate,” Gingrich said.

Next up for the Republican presidential hopefuls are the Nevada and Maine caucuses. Nevada will hold its caucuses on Feb.  4, while Maine’s caucuses will take place over a whole week, Feb. 4-11.

On Feb. 7, Colorado and Minnesota will hold their caucuses, while Missouri will hold a primary in which no delegates are at stake. The candidates will then have a few weeks to gear up for the Michigan and Arizona primaries on Feb. 28 and the Washington caucuses on March 3.

Super Tuesday is March 6, when ten states will hold their primaries or caucuses and 466 delegates are at stake.

Commonly known as “fracking,” hydrologic fracturing is a process that uses pressurized fluid to create cracks in shale deposits located deep underground to extract natural gas. President Obama supports it for an alternative energy and said fracking has the potential to support 600,000 new jobs. But not everyone agrees fracking is the best new energy alternative to coal and oil.

“I think fracking is bad,” Chloe Gleichman said. “I think that fracking is misleading, in the way that it’s portrayed in the media and through energy companies who say it’s a natural gas revolution. In reality, natural gas is just another fossil fuel, and that’s not a revolution”

Gleichman, a Saline sophomore and president of the Student Environmental Alliance at Central Michigan University, said in response to Obama’s push for fracking that we do not need jobs that poison us.

“We talk about job creation, stimulating the economy and making money,” she said. “The people who are making money off this are the couple of people in the energy industry who are raking in enormous profits at the expense of life, and that’s not responsible.”

Concerns about fracking are founded in the potential for it to contaminate the water supply.

“When we drill in complex geographical regions, we don’t always know what the underlying strata are,” said Professor Thomas Rohrer, director of the Great Lakes Institute for Sustainable Systems.

“There may be natural conduits that allow the drilling fluid to move back up into the aquifers, or there may be fractures that are created by the fracking that cause cracks leading up to the water aquifers,” Rohrer said.

But water supply contamination is not the only concern.

“With fracking, there is also the potential that it could release methane gas, which contributes to global warming, because it is a greenhouse gas,” he said.

A New York Times article reported a 4.0 magnitude earthquake that struck Youngstown, Ohio in late December, the second that month, and specialists believe the evidence points to fracking.

Rohrer said sometimes fracking fluid under pressure may leak from a well and lubricate different rock, which cause them to slip and move, resulting in an earthquake.

Taking action

At Central Michigan University, the SEA, a campus organization dedicated to the promotion of environmental awareness and sustainable lifestyles, plans on providing a resolution to the Mount Pleasant City Council that would ban fracking in the area.

They are working on sending letters with information to council members and then hope to present their resolution to the council within the next two weeks.

Gleichman said she hopes the city council will enact SEA’s resolution and ban fracking but also just wants to raise awareness about the issue.

“So many people will be approached for their land to be used for fracking, and they’ll sign it because of the money, and then have to deal with the problems afterward,” Gleichman said.

Mary Graham, a Mount Pleasant resident, said she is also concerned about fracking.

“I worry about it a great deal, because I don’t think that they have explored the possible problems, particularly with the water,” she said.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has stated some of it’s major concerns regarding pertinence to fracking are protecting water aquifers, water volume, managing water disposal and chemical identification.

As fracking sites increase in Michigan, the state has taken one step toward the regulation of water withdrawal, as fracking can use about 50,000 to 500,000 gallons of water per site.

Yet, as a $2 billion dollar industry in Michigan, Rohrer said he does not see fracking as something that will go away but said it needs to be done properly.

Though the Environmental Projection Agency has proposed regulations, they have been slow to keep up with the production curve, he said.

“We are all responsible. We all use the energy. If we want it, we need to make a compromise,” Rohrer said. “There are environmental, human and health risks involved. There’s always a cost, and we have to be willing to pay the cost.”

Obama told the crowd of more than 3,000 he is proposing changes to federal aid programs to combat rising tuition rates across the country.

“If (colleges) can’t stop tuition from going up, then the funding (they) get from taxpayers each year will go down. We should push colleges to do better,” Obama said. “We should hold them accountable if they don’t.”

Under Obama’s plan, federal aid would be cut for colleges and universities that continue to raise tuition.

Last year, Michigan universities increased their tuition rates by an average of 7.1 percent, in large part because of a 15-percent cut in state aid. Central Michigan University increased its tuition rate by 3.45 percent. Obama denounced cuts to state-level aid to colleges and universities throughout the country.

“We’re telling the states if you can bring down the cost of college and find ways for more students to graduate … we will give you additional federal support,” Obama said.

He announced the beginning of a “Race to the Top program for college affordability.” States that invest in higher education will receive more federal support for education, Obama said.

The president called on Congress to extend the recent tuition tax credit, which is set to expire in July.

CMU Political Science Professor James Hill said in an email the importance of a higher education should trump any fears about the cost of such proposals.

“While I am always mindful of the cost of new government initiatives, if there is a promising investment to be made with positive long-term potential, it is in education,” Hill said.

Obama also spoke on the development of green energy and the environment.

“Right now, America is producing more of our own oil than we were eight years ago,” Obama said. “That’s good news. But … no matter how much oil we produce, we’ve only got 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that means we’ve got to focus on clean, renewable energy.”

Obama said the development of green energy is good for the environment and will create jobs across the country.

He also urged Congress to extend the payroll tax cut set to expire at the end of February, and then reiterated his desire to raise taxes for the wealthy to reduce the deficit and pay for government programs.

“When it comes to paying our fair share, I believe we should follow the Warren Buffet rule,” Obama said. “If you make more than $1 million a year, then you should pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent. On other hand, if you make less than $250,000, your taxes shouldn’t go up.”

Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow were in attendance, as well as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and U-M quarterback Denard Robinson.

In the speech Tuesday night, Obama defended his response to the economic and financial crises facing the country.

“The state of our union is getting stronger, and we’ve come too far to turn back now,” Obama said.

Obama started the address by honoring American troops returning from the Iraq War and the military successes in Afghanistan and Libya. He called on Congress to follow their examples and work together for the good of the American people.

He quickly turned his attention to the economy, arguing for “smart” regulations and a reformed tax code, where millionaires pay no less than a 30 percent income tax.

“We can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules,” Obama said.

The president spent a portion of his speech addressing education, saying public universities will be hit with cuts in federal funding if they continue to increase tuition. He also urged all states to invest in education at all levels and called on lawmakers to make “higher education a higher priority.”

Obama used the speech to tout his successes with energy independence and the bailouts of the auto industry and defended programs such as the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.

“I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place,” Obama said.

In the Republican response to the president’s address, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels proposed a simpler tax code and went after the president’s economic record.

Daniels said it’s not fair and it’s not true for the president to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles.

“No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others,” Daniels said.

Saline junior Chloe Gleichman was arrested Aug. 29, 2011 in Washington, D.C. in front of the White House for refusing to disperse during a protest against the Keystone XL project.

Gleichman, president of the Student Environmental Alliance, said she was pleased about the Obama administration’s decision but concerned about where the plan is headed next.

“All the celebration is good, however there are a lot of issues that will still come up,” she said. “It will go through the process again.”

Gleichman said she was worried that TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the proposed pipeline, would change the route and successfully resubmit a modified plan. She said the review process behind pipeline approval is extremely biased in favor of energy companies.

“It’s not an honest review,” she said.

She said the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines raise the risk of spills such as the 2010 Enbridge Energy Partners oil spill in the Kalamazoo River.

In addition to protests against Keystole XL and other pipelines from the Canadian oil sands, Gleichman said she and SEA are currently involved in issues involving corporate influence and lobbying in government and hydrolaugic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” a method used to extract natural gas from shale formations.

“I’m about about the decision, but I do think there’s a lot more coming,” she said. “I think this is just a small piece of the puzzle.”

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. military lost 4,478 members, with another 32,213 wounded in the Iraq War.

According to CBS News, the war cost about $700 billion.

While Iraq now exists as a democratic state, the price paid in both fiscal and human terms makes classifying the end of U.S. operations in the country as a “victory” seem disrespectful and trite.

This war was so strongly opposed by so many patriotic Americans, that phrases like, “I support the troops, but …” became common. The Iraq War demonstrated the profound disconnect between American society and our military mechanism. There was no rationing, no war bond campaign and no draft. The cost of war was burdened quietly by a small number of American families.

The insurgency was ended and Iraqi life began to take on some degree of normalcy. However, the war should stand as a strong reminder that technology and enthusiasm are not enough for a viable occupation. It should remind us that flag waving and fear make for poor foreign policy.

The lack of planning for the war after the war is as strong an indictment against the conflict as the misconstrued evidence that led to it. The immediate shifting of priorities from securing weapons of mass destruction to securing stability for the Iraqi people was given poor preparation.

The Bush Administration attempted to paper over the cracks of sectarian violence, resulting in a nearly decade-long battle to quell violence. Yet, somehow, through improvised tactics and sheer will, American troops will finally leave behind a mostly stable country.

They will return home to a nation in crisis. There will be no more blood shed or money spent in the pursuit of a questionable war. Our brave men and women gave everything in pursuit of an objective that they managed to achieve, despite having the odds stacked against them.

Mission accomplished.

The television in front of us displayed live footage of thousands of people gathered in our nation’s capital to celebrate the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

The icon of terror — figurehead of all that is evil — had just been announced dead. His corpse, in our hands.

We all breathed a sigh of relief upon hearing the announcement. Soon after, President Obama took the podium and delivered an awe-inspiring speech.

“And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world,” Obama said. “The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace.”

It was a sobering reminder of the horrors our nation faced nearly ten years ago.

bin Laden’s death is undoubtedly a serious blow to our nation’s greatest enemy and a huge morale boost for our country.

“Ten years, man, the world champion of hide-and-go-seek is no more,” my buddy joked. “Osama bin Laden? More like Osama bin Dead.”

My social media feeds made it abundantly clear that most people within my social circle felt the same.

Links to the “Team America” theme song filled my Facebook page while people publicly thanked Jesus for the death of the man responsible for the murder of thousands of people throughout the world. My Twitter feed was populated with “Go USA!” celebratory remarks and jokes about how our troops probably tea bagged bin Laden after executing him.

Everyone was rejoicing, myself included. I quickly texted friends and family with “Osama bin Laden is finally dead!”

And while May 1, 2011 will forever remain a day of celebration, I was quickly reminded of the ways in which bin Laden, the symbol of terror, has changed our American way of life.

I thought back to Sept. 11, 2001 — to my Spanish class in my freshman year of high school when an office assistant entered our classroom and told us what had happened.

I thought of all the thousands of Americans that died that day, and of all the servicemen and women we’ve lost to the War on Terror. Entire families forever destroyed.

I thought of Homeland Security, color-coded threat levels, crippling debt and loss of privacy — of web articles providing tips on how to explain to your children why their genitals were groped by the Transportation Security Administration.

The costs of this venture have been steep, paid for in blood and sacrifice.

And now, after the last of the fireworks have sounded, I wonder how our nation will start moving forward.

Before I closed out of my web browser, one last Facebook post caught my eye: “This is a very sad day for the United States, when we celebrate that we got even,” it stated.

As I turned off my TV — still displaying smiling faces and cheers of revenge — a chill ran down my spine.

As part of this first step, he started a campaign targeted at Facebook users in which people could publicly announce “I am in,” meaning you are a supporter. I am, reluctantly, in.

President Obama has undoubtedly moved our country in a better direction. The economy is finally out of the recession and is recovering, in no small part due to the stimulus bill.

The Affordable Care Act is going to give millions of people access to health insurance and probably stabilize costs. Our standing with the international community has improved significantly.

The problem I have is that America was promised change. Of course we should have looked a little closer at what that meant, but I think we assumed it at least meant the opposite of George W. Bush.

Instead what we got might be called “Change Lite” or, in some cases, watered-down Bush policies.

For example, the Obama Administration has given up attempting to get the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay onto U.S. soil so they can be given their fair trial, mostly because of Republican pressure. Many are confused as to why Republican opposition makes any difference.

Although the Affordable Care Act will help insure millions of Americans and reduce the deficit, insurance companies are still the gatekeepers. If President Obama had truly wanted to make health insurance affordable he would have pushed harder for a public option, which would have forced insurance companies to be more competitive and lowered costs.

On many issues and almost all the important ones, President Obama has taken the center-right position and begged Republicans to get along with him. This is despite Republican leadership explicitly saying it has no interest in compromise.

In these difficult economic times we need a leader who is willing to stand up for forward-thinking and rational economic policy. Instead, we have a man who is flirting with Republican ideas.

What is a moderate progressive to do? On the one hand you have President Obama, who is at best a moderate and at worst a conservative. He squandered his large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and now he is faced with a diminished Democratic majority in the Senate and a Republican-controlled House.

It seems as though his base staying home for the 2010 elections has not been a wake-up call for the president.

On the other hand, the only thing worse than a disappointing Democratic president is a right-wing Republican president. President Obama may not be ideal but things are certainly better with him around.

The gay community is better off, women are better off, average workers are better off and the big banks are somewhat annoyed. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or Michele Bachmann would certainly roll this progress back.

Sure, President Obama. I am in. So are most of my peers.

But we are reluctant.

Free trade agreements originally negotiated under the Bush administration with South Korea, Colombia and Panama have been renegotiated but still face opposition and delay in the U.S. Congress.

Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, supports the trade agreements and would like to see them enacted by August, said Camp spokeswoman Lauren Phillips in an e-mail.

Griffin Endowed Chair Maxine Berman said Camp’s time table is possible, but only if Congress wants to move that quickly.

“It moves at a very slow pace, sometimes excruciatingly slow, sometimes you could die waiting for things to happen,” Berman said. “But when Congress wants to move quickly they can.”

The problem right now is that much of Congress does not want to move forward with the agreements, said political science Professor Orlando Perez.

The agreements are essentially stuck and have been tied up for several years, Perez said.

“There’s opposition from some in Congress with the idea of free trade at all because it doesn’t guarantee or protect American jobs and encourages outsourcing,” Perez said. “For some it’s economic reasons, some political reasons.”

With the Republican takeover in the House and increased presence in the Senate, he said, it was thought the agreements would get a more favorable hearing and move quicker than they would under Democratic control.

Perez said several recent presidents have been unwilling to spend significant capital or clout to really push the agreements.

“Obama has expressed his support and repeated it in the State of the Union,” he said. “But there is no evidence that he is pushing in a significant and hard way.”

Obama has said the agreements could create up to 250,000 jobs.

Enacting the free trade agreements will collectively increase U.S. exports by $13 billion, which will create growth and jobs at home, Phillips said.

“Specific to Michigan, the agreements will help increase U.S. exports of automobiles and agricultural commodities,” she said.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk has testified before the Ways and Means Committee on the Obama Administration’s overall trade agenda.

“As frustrating as the slow process is, it’s good to have ample time to get input,” Berman said.